exploring organisational knowledge creation
TRANSCRIPT
Exploring organisational knowledge creation What is the practical value of Nonaka’s Hypertext model and how can it be applied?
Master Thesis
Business Administration
Human Resource Management
School of Management and Governance
University of Twente
Author
J.M. Constandse
Supervisors
Prof. Dr. J.C. Looise
Ir. A.A.R. Veenendaal
Date and place of publication
January 2013
Enschede, the Netherlands
i
Abstract
Knowledge creation models frequently suffer from a narrow scope, or a too broad approach. The
objective of this paper is to take one of these models, namely the Hypertext organisation (Nonaka,
1994) and bring it closer to practice by increasing its fit with a practical situation. The ultimate aim of
this study is to provide a conclusion about the value and applicability of this model for knowledge
creation in knowledge intensive companies.
An extensive review of Nonaka’s contribution to knowledge management literature and adjacent
publications has led to a comprehensive reconstruction of the Hypertext model and its potential
shortcomings. Subsequently, a case study of a knowledge intensive company was conducted using
semi-structured group interviews among 16 respondents who were selected using a combination of
quota sampling and self-selection. The respondents were asked to discuss the current method of
knowledge creation at the company, the individual elements of the reconstructed Hypertext model
in relation to knowledge creation at the company and their perceptions of value and applicability of
the model for knowledge creation at the company. The interview outcomes have led to eight
suggested changes which are aimed to improve the practical relevance of the model.
The main conclusions in this paper are that the Hypertext model is an abstract and idealised
representation of organisational knowledge creation which relies on poorly supported and partially
unproven constructs and relations, but nevertheless holds considerable merit for managing
organisational knowledge creation. Several constructs and relations appear to be influenced by
Japanese culture, while others are expected to more accurately portray reality when configured to
follow a different order. Despite this criticism, the reception of the model among the respondents in
the case study was largely positive as many elements and relations were familiar or perceived to be
valuable. Several respondents have expressed their intention to immediately apply some of the
lessons learned from the interviews in practice.
The overall judgment of the respondents was that the applicability and value of the model is
relatively high. However, the universality of the model and the assessment of theoretical
shortcomings potentially negatively affect the applicability of the model. By implementing the
proposed changes, this paper presents an evolved Hypertext model which holds greater practical
value than its precursor.
ii
iii
Acknowledgement
This thesis is the culmination of the research I have done as part of my graduation for the Master
Business Administration at the University of Twente. Having chosen the master track Human
Resource Management, the study I have conducted focuses on how to manage organisational
knowledge creation, which by extension is the management of human resources.
I would like to use this opportunity to thank my supervisors, Prof. Dr. Jan Kees Looise and Ir. André
Veenendaal, for their support and insightful comments. The way in which Prof. Looise has provided
guidance during the first month of this research has proven to be invaluable in establishing a working
relationship and coming to a successful conclusion. Furthermore, my thanks go out to Dr. Martijn van
Velzen for how he has coached me prior to Prof. Looise taking over the supervision. I am intensely
grateful for the patience he has showed and the way he has motivated me to become a better
student and researcher.
I also would like to thank my parents, family, friends and colleagues who have helped me out in more
than one occasion. You have all kept me on track and your feedback has proven to be very helpful in
completing my studies at the University of Twente.
I am grateful that my former employer has supplied me with the perfect working environment to
work on this thesis. Without expecting any type of compensation he has allowed me to use the
company’s resources and given me the opportunity to work in a distraction free environment.
Finally, I wish to express my gratitude to the participants in the case study who have allowed me to
obtain useful data to perform my analysis with.
Joeri Constandse
iv
v
Index
Abstract .................................................................................................................................................... i
Acknowledgement ................................................................................................................................... iii
1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1. Knowledge creation is necessary, but how? ........................................................................... 1
1.2. Problem statement and research questions ........................................................................... 2
1.3. Research design ....................................................................................................................... 3
1.4. Case selection .......................................................................................................................... 4
1.5. Relevance ................................................................................................................................ 5
1.6. Organisation of the thesis ....................................................................................................... 5
2. The Hypertext organisation design ................................................................................................. 7
2.1. Introduction to the Hypertext organisation design ................................................................ 7
2.2. Underlying principles ............................................................................................................... 9
2.2.1. The knowledge typology ................................................................................................. 9
2.2.2. Modes of knowledge creation ....................................................................................... 12
2.2.3. The knowledge creation spiral ...................................................................................... 17
2.2.4. Knowledge scaling ......................................................................................................... 19
2.2.5. Self-organising teams .................................................................................................... 21
2.2.6. Managing organisational knowledge creation .............................................................. 23
2.2.7. Middle-up-down management ..................................................................................... 25
2.3. Returning to the Hypertext organisation .............................................................................. 27
2.4. Potential shortcomings ......................................................................................................... 32
2.5. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 35
3. Methodology ................................................................................................................................. 38
3.1. Introduction of the case company ........................................................................................ 38
3.2. Research methodology .......................................................................................................... 40
3.3. Operationalization ................................................................................................................. 44
vi
4. Results of the case study ............................................................................................................... 50
4.1. The current method of knowledge creation ......................................................................... 50
4.2. How the Hypertext model relates to the case company....................................................... 53
4.3. Applicability and value of the model for the case company ................................................. 58
5. Assessing the case study outcomes .............................................................................................. 61
5.1. Differences between the case company and the Hypertext model ...................................... 61
5.2. Similarities between the case company and the Hypertext model ...................................... 62
5.3. Value and applicability for the case company ....................................................................... 63
6. Conclusion and discussion ............................................................................................................. 65
6.1. Research question outcomes ................................................................................................ 65
6.1.1. The main elements of the model and its contribution to knowledge creation ............ 65
6.1.2. Operationalizing and implementing the model in practice........................................... 66
6.1.3. Value and applicability for knowledge intensive companies ........................................ 67
6.1.4. Conclusions regarding the applicability of the model ................................................... 68
6.2. Increasing the model’s fit with the practical setting ............................................................. 70
6.2.1. Amending the model to bring it closer to practice ....................................................... 70
6.2.2. Suggestions to improve knowledge creation at the case company .............................. 76
6.3. Contributions ......................................................................................................................... 78
6.4. Limitations and suggestions for follow up research .............................................................. 79
References ............................................................................................................................................. 82
Appendices ............................................................................................................................................ 86
A.1. Interview protocol ................................................................................................................. 86
A.2. Interview briefing .................................................................................................................. 90
1
1. Introduction
1.1. Knowledge creation is necessary, but how?
The importance of knowledge as an organisational resource has been emphasised by Grant (1996) in
his work on the knowledge-based theory of the firm. Knowledge should be seen as an intangible
asset which is unique, causally ambiguous and hard to imitate or substitute. The resource based view
attributes competitive advantage to the possession of these characteristics (Barney, 1991; Kogut &
Zander, 1992; Cabrera & Cabrera, 2002). Kogut and Zander (1992) argue that the sharing and transfer
of knowledge of individuals and groups within an organisation is the reason why firms exist. Inter-
organisational knowledge diffusion, however, can lead to erosion of competitive advantages (Teece,
2000; Coff, Coff & Eastvold, 2006). The sustainability of the competitive advantage from knowledge
resources must therefore be attributed to the ability to create new knowledge (Grant, 1996; Nonaka,
Toyama & Konno, 2000; Turner & Makhija, 2006). The outcomes of knowledge creation can be
threefold: (1) product and process innovations with an enhanced understanding or “justified true
belief”, (2) an enhanced capacity to act, and (3) the ability to act, define, and solve problems (Nonaka
& von Krogh, 2009).
The currently available models describing knowledge creation are often incomplete due to unevenly
distributed support for specific aspects of these models (e.g. Nonaka, 1991). Sometimes they are
based on misinterpretation of important premises (e.g. Coff, Coff & Eastvold, 2006), or inadequately
explain concepts with crucial importance (e.g. Argote & Ingram, 2000). If authors provide examples
of operationalization, they are frequently vague or appear to incompletely translate theory into
practice (e.g. Nonaka, 1994). Other publications contain methodological shortcomings (e.g. Song,
Almeida & Wu, 2003; Menon & Pfeffer, 2003), or confuse readers by using concept labels with
differing contextual meanings (e.g. Kogut & Zander, 1992 vs. Bhatt, 2001; Polanyi, 1966 vs. Coff, Coff
& Eastvold, 2006). Choi and Lee (2002) have stated that despite the voluminous discussion about
knowledge management strategies, there is relatively little empirical evidence available.
At the same time there is no denying that most of these models hold value in the field of knowledge
management research. Several articles (Nelson & Winter, 1982; Nonaka, 1991; Starbuck, 1992; Kogut
& Zander, 1992; Burt, 1995; Grant, 1996; Teece, Pisano & Shuen, 1997) can be considered to have
formed a foundation upon which other researchers have been able to build their own theories.
Judging by the number of times these articles have been referred to in other publications, one can
assume that they are held in high regard. Unfortunately, this does not implicitly lead to
comprehensiveness or practical applicability.
2
The influence knowledge has on competitiveness, the distribution of competences and the
availability of tools that assist knowledge transfer have increased the importance of effective
knowledge transfer within firms (Teece, 2000). But without knowing what the practical value and
applicability is of models which stimulate knowledge creation effectiveness, how should knowledge
creation be shaped?
1.2. Problem statement and research questions
The practical applicability and by extension the value of knowledge management models remains
unclear and forms a hole in existing knowledge management theory. An assessment of a model’s
applicability can have implications for the perceived value of the model and lead to better informed
implementation decisions.
This paper takes one of the knowledge creation models, namely the Hypertext organisation (Nonaka,
1994) and brings it closer to practice by amending it to increase its fit with a practical situation. The
Hypertext model was chosen because it builds on elements of knowledge management that have
been widely adopted by other researchers, despite some of them suffering from vague explanations
and lack of empirical testing. With what appear to be shaky foundations, the Hypertext
organisational model presents an organisation design tailored for knowledge creation. At first glance
the model offers a solution for any organisation looking to optimise its knowledge creation activities,
but considering the aforementioned, what is the real value and applicability of the Hypertext model?
This study will provide a basis for operationalization and implementation in a practical setting. To
reach this goal, we will critically examine the model and provide a detailed description of its various
elements. An assessment of the model’s applicability will be easier to perform when an
understanding is created of how the model can be operationalized and implemented in practice.
Next, a conclusion will be drawn regarding the value and applicability of the model in a particular
practical setting (knowledge intensive companies, a choice which will be elaborated on in section
1.4.). Finally, through combining empirical data and the outcomes of the literature review, a
conclusion will be drawn about the applicability of the model for knowledge creation.
To sum up, the research questions in this paper are:
1. What are the main elements of Nonaka’s Hypertext organisation model and what does it
contribute to knowledge creation?
2. How can the model be operationalized and implemented in practice?
3
3. What is the value and applicability of the model for knowledge creation in knowledge
intensive companies?
4. Which conclusions can be drawn regarding the applicability of the model?
1.3. Research design
This study follows a research design in which an assessment of Nonaka’s contribution to knowledge
management literature forms the basis. This assessment includes adjacent publications from other
authors. The literature review culminates in the construction of a comprehensive explanation of the
Hypertext model which stays as close to Nonaka’s intentions as possible. Using this reconstructed
model, a list of its potential shortcomings is formulated.
The second phase of this research involves conducting a case study using semi-structured group
interviews. These interviews can be divided into three segments. The first segment covers the
current method of knowledge creation at the case company (see section 1.4.), in which the
respondents are asked to describe how knowledge is being created, if this method fits the knowledge
requirements of the company and how they would propose to improve knowledge creation
effectiveness.
Following the first segment is an in-depth explanation of the reconstructed Hypertext model and the
way its elements are conceptualised to work in unison. The second segment of the interview focuses
on the model and facilitates discussions about how the model’s elements are similar to how the
company currently works and how the respondents would see other elements operate in practice.
The third segment of the interviews involves the measuring of perceptions of value and applicability
of the model for knowledge creation at the case company. The respondents are asked to discuss
their expectations of fit between the company’s knowledge requirements and the Hypertext model,
and how they would envision bringing the model closer to practice.
Using the interview outcomes, suggestions are made to bring the model closer to practice. These
suggestions lead to the construction of an improved version of the Hypertext model. Furthermore,
based on the case study and the literature review a list is constructed of suggestions to improve the
knowledge creation processes at the case company. Finally, an overall verdict about value and
applicability of the reconstructed Hypertext model is formulated, using the literature review and the
case study combined.
4
1.4. Case selection
This study focuses on how knowledge creation is managed in knowledge intensive companies and
ascertains the value and applicability of the Hypertext model in this setting. The choice for
knowledge intensive companies is made because of the importance of effectively and efficiently
creating knowledge in this type of organisation. Swart and Kinnie (2003) state that knowledge
intensive firms gain competitive advantage with the human and social capital they possess. Human
capital includes individual tacit and explicit knowledge (Nelson & Winter, 1982). It is therefore likely
that knowledge creation models are highly relevant to knowledge intensive companies. Changing the
Hypertext model to bring it closer to practice will also have a larger impact on these companies than
others because of the important role knowledge creation plays for these companies.
The case company is a major Dutch internet agency employing around 90 people. Following the
criteria for knowledge intensive firms set out by Swart and Kinnie (2003), the case company can be
described as being knowledge intensive, because most of the work at the company is of an
intellectual nature and college-level educated workers form a major part of the workforce.
Furthermore, Starbuck (1992) describes knowledge intensive firms as companies in which knowledge
has more importance than other resources in maintaining the firm’s competitive position, which also
applies to the case company.
The company was selected based on how the researcher has perceived the company while being
employed at the company in the years prior to the study. The company’s affiliation with knowledge
creation and the perceived pragmatic approach to managing knowledge creation make this company
a suitable basis to compare the model with. Without being aware of how the Hypertext model is
constructed, several elements have been observed to be in place at the company prior to the study
taking place. The company relies heavily on dialogue and teamwork to share knowledge, similar to
how Nonaka has conceptualised the socialisation and externalisation modes of knowledge creation.
Furthermore, the company has adopted an organisational structure which shows strong similarities
with Nonaka’s project-system layer, in which self-organising teams enjoy high degrees of autonomy,
cross-fertilisation and self-transcendence. A final similarity between the model and the case
company’s pragmatic method of knowledge creation has been observed to be the role of top
management in determining a broad overall direction after which middle management works with
entrepreneurial individuals to translate the ambitious goals of top management to practice.
5
1.5. Relevance
This study is of value to the practice of knowledge management for four reasons. Firstly, the
proposed changes this study offers to bring the Hypertext model closer to practice amend the model
to be easier to apply in knowledge intensive companies. The improved model is a more accurate
representation of practical knowledge creation in the setting of knowledge intensive companies.
Secondly, in conducting the interviews, decision makers at the case company are sparked to look into
ways to manage the way knowledge creation takes place at the company. This new interest is
planned to result in the hosting of a workshop to present this study’s findings to a larger audience at
the case company and discuss ways to improve its knowledge creation process.
Thirdly, this study provides suggestions to improve knowledge creation at the case company. While
these suggestions were not part of the original goal of this study, an analysis of the interview
outcomes and constructing a list of suggestions to improve the model has led to a realisation that
there is an opportunity for quick gains at the company and companies which face similar conditions.
The fourth source for practical relevance is that this study will draw conclusions about the practical
applicability and value of the model in the setting of a knowledge intensive company, which enables
managers to take better informed implementation decisions.
1.6. Organisation of the thesis
This paper is structured to follow the order of the research questions. The second chapter will
explain the principles that underlie Nonaka’s Hypertext organisation model and how the model is
designed to affect the practice of knowledge creation. Chapter two will culminate in an
interpretation of how Nonaka has intended the individual elements of the Hypertext model to work
together. This interpretation is a reconstruction of the model using the original publication in which
the model was presented (Nonaka, 1994) and adjacent publications. Using the reconstructed model,
chapter two will end with an assessment of the merits and potential shortcomings of the model, and
will provide answers to the first two research questions.
Chapter three will introduce the case company, elaborate on the research methodology and the
operationalization of constructs.
The fourth chapter will present the research findings by discussing the most relevant quotes,
following the three stages of the interviews. Firstly, the current method of knowledge creation at the
case company will be discussed. Following this, the interview outcomes concerning the way the
Hypertext model relates to the case company are presented. Chapter four will conclude with the
participant’s perceptions of applicability and value of the model for knowledge creation at the case
6
company.
The fifth chapter will elaborate on the observed differences and similarities between the case
company’s knowledge creation method and the Hypertext model. The fifth chapter will cap off with a
statement about the value and applicability of the Hypertext model in the setting of the case
company, thus answering the third research question.
The sixth and final chapter will present the conclusions of this study. The four research questions are
answered and changes are made to the model in order to bring it closer to practice. Furthermore, the
sixth chapter will contain suggestions to improve the knowledge creation activities at the case
company, an examination of the contributions of this study to knowledge management theory and a
discussion of this study’s limitations and potential subjects for follow-up research
7
2. The Hypertext organisation design
The Hypertext organisation is an organisational architecture that is expected to improve the
efficiency of the knowledge creation process. The design consists of a three-layered organisation, in
which employees cycle from a hierarchical top-down organisation into a flat team-based organisation
and a supporting knowledge base. How these layers fit together will be explained in section 2.1.
This chapter is structured in a fashion where the Hypertext model is briefly introduced, after which
the underlying principles are examined. It is concluded with an in-depth assessment of how the
model functions and what the potential shortcomings are.
2.1. Introduction to the Hypertext organisation design
Nonaka (1994) has coined a new organisational architecture which combines the efficiency and
stability of a hierarchical bureaucratic organisation with the flexibility of the flat, cross-functional
task-force organisation. This new architecture is intended to combine the advantages these
structures have on knowledge creation effectiveness. The Hypertext organisation consists of three
layers (see figure 1).
Figure 1: Hypertext Organisation (Nonaka, 1994)
The bottom layer of the Hypertext organisation is known as the knowledge-base layer, in which tacit
and explicit knowledge are embedded. This tacit knowledge can be associated with organisational
8
culture and procedures, while the explicit knowledge has taken form in documents, filing systems, or
digital databases.
The layer on top of the knowledge-base is called the business-system layer. This is where routine
operations are carried out in a hierarchical, bureaucratic organisation. This layer has all the
characteristics of a top-down organisation.
The top layer is known as the project-system layer. Multiple knowledge creating self-organising
project teams make up this layer. The teams are loosely linked to facilitate an interconnectedness
that improves the knowledge creation process. They share the same corporate vision that underlies
the knowledge creation efforts.
Organisational knowledge creation is conceptualised as a perpetual dynamic cycle of knowledge and
information flowing through the three layers (see figure 2). The project teams in the top layer are
comprised of members from diverse functions and departments from the business-system layer. The
teams cooperate in their efforts to work towards the knowledge goals set out by the company
management. When a team completes the task that has been set out for it, it is disassembled. The
project team members then move to the knowledge-base layer to create an inventory in which the
outcomes of their knowledge creation activities are stored. They move back to the business system
layer when they finish their documenting and resume their routine operations until they are called
upon for another project.
Figure 2: Flow through the layers of the Hypertext Organisation (based on Nonaka, 1994)
9
The Hypertext organisation design relies on the notion that knowledge can be either tacit or explicit,
depending on the relative ease with which knowledge can be articulated or codified. This typology
forms the basis upon which the knowledge creation process is conceptualised as knowledge moving
through a sequence of conversions between tacit and explicit, where it gains magnitude and
momentum. This sequence of conversions forms a circle, or a spiral of ever growing knowledge
assets. The spiral is the result of implementing several triggers; knowledge creation enhancing
conditions and specific knowledge creation activities that together form an intricate network of
relations.
The complexity of this network and the assumptions that lie at the foundation of the Hypertext
organisation design, require the reader to understand the underlying principles, before explaining
how the building blocks are integrated to form a whole. Section 2.2. will discuss these elements by
diving into the deepest level of analysis and moving upwards toward a reconstruction of the model.
While presenting the underlying elements, each item will be critically examined and discussed while
introducing relevant alternative theories.
A visual representation of the conceptualised relations is provided in section 2.3. This chapter
concludes with an assessment of the potential shortcomings of the model based on the literature
review and answers to the first two research questions.
2.2. Underlying principles
2.2.1. The knowledge typology
Knowledge is defined using several classifications. Examples of such classifications are component
and architectural knowledge (Tallman et al., 2004), tacit and specific knowledge (Coff, Coff &
Eastvold, 2006), information and know-how (Kogut & Zander, 1992), and tacit and explicit knowledge
(Polanyi, 1966; Nonaka, 1991). These classifications are similar in that they assign a label to
knowledge types, based on the value of this knowledge. The distinction between tacit and explicit
knowledge has influenced the field of knowledge management considerably. It is a classification
which is based on the ease with which the knowledge can be disseminated. The assumption that
knowledge can be explicit or tacit has in recent years developed into a proposition that knowledge
should not be identified as either explicit or tacit, but can be placed on a scale that ranges from
explicit to tacit (Ambrosini & Bowman, 2001) to acknowledge the existence of knowledge which
exhibits characteristics of both tacit and explicit knowledge.
10
In 1966 Polanyi explained that we know more than we can tell. From a Gestalt-psychology angle he
explains that we unawarely possess knowledge which as a result of our unawareness is difficult or
impossible to articulate. This type of knowledge is tacit knowledge.
To elaborate on what is tacit knowledge, Polanyi (1966) made an interesting reference to Plato’s
Meno: “we take for granted that solutions to great problems are great discoveries. But seeing a
solution to a problem is not being able to see something that is hidden, but to see something that
other people are not aware of seeing” … “[Plato] says that to search for the solution of a problem is
an absurdity; for either you know what you are looking for, and then there is no problem; or you do
not know what you are looking for, and then you cannot expect to find anything.” In Poe’s Purloined
Letter there is a momentous document in front of everybody and as a result of it being available it is
overlooked by everybody. In terms of Meno this means that if all knowledge is explicit (easily
articulated), we cannot know a problem or look for a solution to it. Therefore, if problems exist and
discoveries are made to solve them, there must be a knowing of something we cannot tell. This
assumption hints at a type of knowledge that we are unaware of knowing or unable to articulate.
Polanyi (1966) calls this type of knowledge tacit knowledge.
Nonaka (1991) describes tacit knowledge as being highly personal, hard to formalise and difficult to
communicate. It is deeply rooted in action and in an individual’s commitment to a specific context.
Tacit knowledge consists partly of technical skill and knowhow which has been developed over years
of practice. The cognitive dimension of tacit knowledge lies in its composition of mental models,
beliefs, and perspectives, which are difficult to explain because the holders of this knowledge take it
for granted. Ambrosini and Bowman (2001) attribute tacit knowledge with specificity, because this
type of knowledge is acquired in a particular setting. Additionally, Ambrosini and Bowman (2001)
explain that the personal trait of tacit knowledge is caused by the degree to which the knowledge has
become ingrained in people and organisations, which lead to the knowledge becoming implicit and
taken for granted. The specificity and the personal nature of tacit knowledge render it difficult for
outsiders to imitate or copy (Nonaka, 1991; Kogut & Zander, 1992; Nonaka, 1994; Ambrosini &
Bowman, 2001; Coff, Coff & Eastvold, 2006)
Kogut and Zander (1992) have influenced the current understanding of what is tacit knowledge.
Instead of using the construct label “tacit knowledge”, they use the term know-how. Know-how was
described by Von Hippel (1988) as “… the accumulated practical skill or expertise that allows one to
do something smoothly and efficiently”. Kogut and Zander use the term information for knowledge
that can be transmitted without loss of integrity once the syntactical rules required for deciphering it
are known. Information is placed on the opposite of know-how on the knowledge attribute scale.
Knowledge as information implies knowing what something means, while knowledge as know-how
11
implies knowing how to do something. The distinction between information and know-how is
comparable to that made between declarative knowledge (a statement that provides a description)
and procedural knowledge (a statement to describe a process).
If information (Kogut & Zander, 1992) is a type of knowledge that can be transmitted without loss of
integrity, it is essentially the same thing as Nonaka’s (1991) explicit knowledge. Nonaka describes
explicit knowledge as formal and systematic, which makes it relatively easy to communicate and
share, for example through product specifications or scientific formulae.
When comparing the typologies of Nonaka (1991, 1994), Kogut and Zander (1992) and Ambrosini and
Bowman (2001), it is apparent that Nonaka’s division of tacit and explicit knowledge is a valid one. It
is however cut short in its explanation and leaves the reader wondering what is truly meant. The
other authors are much more elaborate in explaining the difference between these constructs.
Ambrosini and Bowman (2001) for example offer several gradations of tacitness and explicitness, a
proposition which was later supported by Nonaka (Nonaka, von Krogh and Voelpel, 2006; Nonaka &
von Krogh, 2009). Furthermore, Nonaka (1991, 1994) rarely uses practical examples of the difference
between tacitness and explicitness, as opposed to Kogut and Zander (1992), Ambrosini and Bowman
(2001), Turner and Makhija (2006) and Coff, Coff and Eastvold (2006). Kogut and Zander’s
explanation (1991) of know-how and information, constructs which in many ways have the same
meaning as tacit and explicit knowledge, is much more easily understood than the typology Nonaka
uses.
If one were to exclusively use Nonaka’s explanation (1994) of tacit and explicit knowledge, the
comprehension of these constructs would be very limited. This drawback can be overcome by
including articles from other authors who have adopted and modified these constructs or using a
larger selection of Nonaka’s work. This raises the question if Nonaka’s distinction between tacit and
explicit knowledge forms a stable enough foundation for the knowledge creation model that will be
explained in the following sections.
In closing, the distinction between explicit and tacit knowledge lies in the way the knowledge was
created and the ease with which it can be articulated. The awareness of possessing knowledge plays
a role in labelling knowledge along a spectrum that ranges from explicit to tacit, with explicit
knowledge being a type of knowledge of which individuals are consciously aware of possessing it,
while this awareness does not apply to tacit knowledge. An understanding of the differences
between explicit and tacit knowledge is important before moving on to the knowledge creation
spiral, which is the most important element in the Hypertext organisational model.
12
2.2.2. Modes of knowledge creation
Nonaka (1991, 1994) describes four phases (figure 3) in organisational knowledge creation that exist
in dynamic interaction with each other:
1. From tacit to tacit; socialisation
2. From tacit to explicit; externalisation
3. From explicit to explicit; combination
4. From explicit to tacit; internalisation
Because tacit knowledge is acquired through experience and experimentation, it is difficult to share
this type of knowledge without common experiences. Transferring tacit knowledge therefore takes
place during a long process of observation, imitation, and practice. Creating tacit knowledge through
shared experience is called socialisation, while creating tacit knowledge through experimentation
with explicit knowledge is called internalisation.
Nonaka (1994) explains that new explicit knowledge can be created through social processes that
combine different bodies of explicit knowledge held by individuals and by using dialogue with
metaphors and analogies to articulate tacit knowledge. The reconfiguring, combining and
recontextualizing of several bodies of explicit knowledge will lead to new insights and solutions for
the problems we experience. This process of creating new explicit knowledge from several bodies of
existing explicit knowledge is called combination. Articulating tacit knowledge to make it explicit is
called externalisation.
Socialisation and combination don’t affect the tacit or explicit nature of the knowledge involved.
They are techniques of transferring and creating through reconfiguration of knowledge. There are
two types of knowledge conversion: from explicit to tacit (internalisation) and from tacit to explicit
(externalisation). Explicit knowledge and tacit knowledge are complementary and can expand over
time through a process of mutual interaction. Nonaka (1994) explains that metaphors play an
important role in externalisation and action is
deeply related to internalisation. Internalisation
is comparable to the traditional definition of
learning – acquiring tacit knowledge from
sources of explicit knowledge, or skills and
know-how from textbooks.
The processes of socialisation, internalisation
and combination are part of the theories of
Figure 3: Modes of knowledge creation (amended from Nonaka, 1994)
13
organisational culture, organisational learning and information processing respectively.
Externalisation however, is not coupled as easily with any organisational theories. Converting tacit
knowledge into explicit knowledge is a difficult process which has received some attention from
scholars, but the way this process can take shape remains largely a mystery. Nonaka (1991, 1994)
expresses that using metaphors can help in converting tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge, but
doesn’t provide any empirical evidence to support this claim. He is also vague in explaining how this
process would take shape. Ambrosini and Bowman (2001) support Nonaka’s assertion (1994) that
metaphors are useful in transmitting tacit knowledge. If something cannot easily be put into words,
then perhaps it can be explained through telling a story about an occurrence in which the subject
plays a role. The authors call this storytelling.
Using metaphors or storytelling when direct language is available is discouraged. One way to prevent
the overuse of metaphors is to ask to reformulate an explanation. If the second explanation is
another metaphor, instead of a “regular” expression, the original metaphor is appropriate for the
situation.
Metaphors can be used to explain something intuitive to people who are grounded in different
contexts and with different experiences, through the use of imagination and symbols without the
need for analysis or generalisation (Nonaka, 1991, 1994). The process of deciphering a metaphor by
the audience is the first step of converting tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge.
Analogies are more structured than metaphors because they aren’t driven by intuition and images
that are at first glance remotely linked to each other. Analogies form a more structured process of
reconciling contradictions and making distinctions, and they highlight the similarities between the
contradicting terms in metaphors. This reduces the ambiguity of the metaphors.
What is not explained is what the value is of using a metaphor before moving to an analogy. What is
the reason for forcing the expression of contradicting terms and connecting these terms in a later
phase? This may be where mental models come into play. Mental models that include schemata,
paradigms, beliefs, and perspectives are understood to help us perceive and define the world around
us (Nonaka, 1994 p.16). But this explanation is taken out of context, because the author originally
uses it to describe the cognitive element of tacit knowledge. Nonaka potentially attributes value to
the transition from metaphor to analogy in the role mental models play during the interpretation and
reconstruction of the contradicting terms in the metaphor. If this is true, there is a loss of integrity in
the message that is being conveyed. If the transition from tacit to explicit involves a two-step process
in which interpretation plays a key role, the message will change due to the influence mental models
have on the act of interpreting. Even though this line of thought is speculative and a considerable
deviation from that of Nonaka, it can be concluded that there is a potential hole in his reasoning. If
14
he were more concise in his elaborate explanation of the role metaphors play in articulating tacit
knowledge, it may have been easier to understand. It appears that Ambrosini and Bowman’s (2001)
suggestion to use storytelling and cognitive (causal) mapping as techniques to articulate tacit
knowledge would be a better option, as these are less complex and not influenced by the
aforementioned threat to the message integrity.
A second point of criticism can be raised against the way the process of socialisation is explained
(Nonaka, 1991, p. 98-99). Socialisation, or the transfer of tacit knowledge without converting it into
explicit knowledge, is described using an example of an electrical appliance manufacturer’s quest of
designing a bread-making machine for home use. What follows is an anecdote of how the designers
were unable to deliver a machine that would produce high quality bread. In order to improve their
design, one staff member went into an apprenticeship with a master baker and over time has learnt
the craft of baking high quality bread. Because tacit knowledge is rooted in action (Kogut & Zander,
1992; Ambrosini & Bowman, 2001), Nonaka (1991, p. 98-99) chose to explain the transfer of tacit
knowledge by writing about the baker’s apprentice learning how the kneading technique influences
the quality of the bread. It was a twisting motion during the stretching of the dough that was missing
from the bread-making machine’s design.
This is a poor example of how tacit knowledge can be transferred. It actually describes how the
master baker performs his job differently from how a layman would do it, by performing an action
that could have easily been put into words. In this example the tacit knowledge is not transferred
through the accumulation of years of hands-on experience, but learning from a simple observation.
This reasoning is furthered by Ribeiro and Collins (2007). They argue that the notion of knowledge
conversion from tacit to explicit (externalisation) is conceptually flawed if based on the case of the
bread-making machine because tacit knowledge has not become embedded into the machine as a
result of the designer’s apprenticeship with a master baker (Ribeiro & Collins, 2007, p. 1418).
Gourlay (2006) shares the sentiment that Nonaka (1991, 1994) has insufficiently explained the
process of socialisation by using an improper example. Here however, the focus of the criticism is on
whether the taste or kneading was at issue in producing high quality bread. In reference to a bread
making handbook, Gourlay states that the taste of bread is affected by the raw ingredients, the
dough maturation process and the baking, but not by the kneading. He concludes that the example
used by Nonaka is faulty because of the assumption that the twisting of the dough is the secret to
baking high quality bread. Instead, the improvement to the bread-maker design is likely attributed to
incidental problem solving during the lengthy design process (Gourlay, 2006, p. 1417). The potential
for an incorrect attribution of success undermines Nonaka’s example, which leaves the conclusion
that the process of socialisation is insufficiently explained.
15
Nonaka’s explanation of the process of combination is also insufficient: “An individual can also
combine discrete pieces of explicit knowledge into a whole. For example, when a comptroller of a
company collects information from throughout the organisation and puts it together in a financial
report, the report is new knowledge in the sense that it synthesises information from many different
sources. But this combination does not really extend the company’s existing knowledge base either”
(Nonaka, 1991, p. 99). In theoretical terms combination is described as the creation of new
knowledge through merging and reconfiguring existing knowledge. Nonaka chose to use a weak
example of how several sources of existing knowledge are combined in a single document. This
document is seen as the new source of knowledge. He admits that this new source of knowledge
does not add to the company’s knowledge endowment, but instead of providing a better
explanation, he continues to explain the process of externalisation; omitting to provide a concise
elaboration of how combination works.
In his 1994 article, Nonaka explains that “The reconfiguring of existing information through the
sorting, adding, recategorizing, and recontextualizing of explicit knowledge can lead to new
knowledge.” This does not significantly alter the state with which this construct is explained in the
previous publication, leading to the conclusion that it is unclear how the process of combination
works. Nonaka (1991, 1994) has described the construct in theoretical terms and by using a single
example, but does not produce evidence of knowledge creation through the reconfiguration and
combination of existing knowledge.
Internalisation is explained using an example where the comptroller’s summary of data causes a
revision of the company’s financial control system (Nonaka, 1991, p. 99). The revised financial control
system becomes a part of the organisation’s internal environment: a new status-quo which, over
time, is taken for granted by the employees. The new financial control system will become a part of
the toolset and resources necessary for the employees to do their jobs.
The transition from explicit to tacit does not occur at the intersection between delivering the
comptroller’s dataset and the formulation of a new financial control system, but at the point where
the employees start subconsciously performing their jobs in accordance with the behaviour that is
stimulated by the new financial control system. The knowledge has changed from being entirely
explicit (the comptroller’s dataset) to being largely tacit (the subconscious awareness of the financial
control system, which leads to a change in employee behaviour). In essence this can be seen as a
good example of how explicit knowledge is converted into tacit knowledge. Unfortunately the
formulation of the example appears to put too much emphasis on the influence the comptroller’s
dataset has on the revision of the financial control system, because a relatively simple source of
knowledge inspires the creation of a more complex type of knowledge. This distracts the reader from
16
what the author is really trying to bring across. If Nonaka had chosen to include an additional
example of how internalisation works, or abstained from mentioning the comptroller’s dataset, it
may have worked better in explaining the construct.
Choi and Lee (2002) have examined the link between knowledge management strategies and the
modes of knowledge creation, and found evidence for the way socialisation, externalisation,
combination and internalisation work. The authors have categorised knowledge management
strategies in human and system strategies, a typology which shows overlap with the distinction
between tacit and explicit knowledge. Empirical testing shows that knowledge management
strategies need to be adjusted to fit the knowledge creation process within the company to improve
corporate performance. The human strategy is found to be most suitable for socialisation and
internalisation. The system strategy is found to be most suitable for combination. Choi and Lee
(2002) state that Bloodgood and Salisbury (2001) and Riggins and Rhee (1999) have found the system
strategy to be suitable for externalisation as well, which completes the linking between the
knowledge creation modes and the two knowledge management strategies.
In a confirmatory factor analysis using survey data from 105 middle managers from firms in the
Tokyo area, Nonaka et al. (1994) have found empirical support for the existence of all four modes of
knowledge creation. An interesting outcome here is that Nonaka et al. (1994) did not find evidence
for the use of dialogue and metaphor in the externalisation phase. It is also noteworthy that there
are several threats to the study’s statistical conclusion validity and the external validity due to low
statistical power, homogeneity of the sampled units, and the potential for an interaction of the
causal relationship with the sampled units.
What can be drawn from this is that the conceptualisation of the four modes of knowledge creation
is sound, though the way they are explained raise more questions than they solve. Nonaka et al.
(1994) have proven that the constructs socialisation, externalisation, combination and integration are
valid. Choi and Lee (2002) have proven that there is a significant relation between the type of
behaviour observed and the knowledge creation mode which formed the context in which the
observation is made. This relation is as Nonaka has hypothesised in 1991.
In conclusion it can be noted that the four phases of organisational knowledge creation (Nonaka,
1991, 1994) are insufficiently explained, but empirically proven in several occasions. The validity of
the four modes has a great impact on the perceived value of the Hypertext organisational model, as
the constructs of tacit and explicit knowledge, and the four phases of organisational knowledge
creation function as the foundation upon which the model is built. What follows is an elaboration on
how these phases are hypothesised to work in dynamic interaction with each other.
17
2.2.3. The knowledge creation spiral
Knowledge creation can take place in each of the four aforementioned modes. However, the central
theme of the model is the dynamic interaction between the modes. The interaction between the
modes is necessary because without it, problems can arise. Nonaka (1994) provides an example by
explaining that pure combination leads to a superficial interpretation of existing knowledge which
has little to do with the here-and-now reality. Pure socialisation limits the “sharability” of the tacit
knowledge and keeps this knowledge bound to the context in which it was created.
Organisational knowledge creation takes place when the four modes are managed to form a
perpetual cycle. Knowledge creation in a sequence of knowledge creation modes can be seen as
knowledge shifting through the modes. These shifts are triggered by certain events. The triggering
conditions are:
Socialisation starts with the building of a team or a field of interaction in which experiences
and perspectives are shared
Externalisation starts after several rounds of meaningful dialogue in which a sophisticated
use of metaphors is used to enable the articulation of tacit knowledge.
Combination is triggered by coordination between team members and the rest of the
organisation, and documentation of existing knowledge.
Internalisation takes place when team members assimilate knowledge in a trial-and-error
fashion. This experimentation can trigger internalisation.
The cycle (see figure 4) can be seen as a spiral if
the outcomes of the knowledge creation process
are assumed to be a form of progress. Progress
resulting from knowledge creation causes the
starting point of the knowledge creation cycle to
move upwards. But since the knowledge
creation cycle does not have a clear beginning or
end, the starting point is continually shifting,
which transforms the cycle into a spiral. Because
the knowledge creation starts at the individual level and expands through interaction, it transcends
sectional, departmental, divisional and ultimately organisational boundaries (Nonaka, Toyama &
Konno, 2000). The incrementally increasing unit size of knowledge and the expansion across
organisational units causes the cycle to become a spiral.
Figure 4: Knowledge creation spiral (Nonaka, 1994)
18
What is missing from Nonaka’s work is that the hypothesised causal relations between the triggering
conditions and the modes of knowledge creation are lacking empirical support. Nonaka (1994)
supports the propositions with the anecdotal evidence that he uses to describe the four modes of
knowledge creation (see subsection 2.2.1.) and fails to deliver more compelling evidence, such as the
work of Nonaka et al. (1994), Riggins and Rhee (1999), Bloodgood and Salisbury (2001) and Choi and
Lee (2002) in the context of the four modes of knowledge creation. Furthermore, in his elaboration
the author does not provide the evidence first hand. The hypothesised triggering conditions are in
effect the same as the actual behaviour that is being stimulated. It is easy to assume that behaviour
will be witnessed after introducing said behaviour to a setting. This leads to the conclusion that the
proposed triggering conditions are insufficiently supported. This shortcoming can be solved by an
inclusion of empirical data which points at a cause and effect relationship between the triggering
conditions and the modes of knowledge creation.
It is also unclear how Nonaka (1994) attributes power to the interaction between tacit and explicit
knowledge conversion modes. He provides examples of focusing on pure combination or pure
socialisation, which can prove problematic, but there is no mention of effects when focusing on
internalisation or externalisation.
The argument for the knowledge creation spiral (Nonaka, 1991, 1994) implicitly prescribes an order
in which the modes of knowledge creation should take place. Figure 4 displays the spiral as a
clockwise motion. Forcing a different order appears to be impossible because the outcome of the
socialisation phase is used as the input for the externalisation phase, which in turn supplies the input
for the combination phase, and so on. Nonaka (1991, 1994) attributes a sequential nature to the
process of knowledge creation by aligning the knowledge creation modes in this order. Just five years
earlier Nonaka made an argument for abandoning sequential development processes in the context
of product development (Takeuchi & Nonaka, 1986; Nonaka, 1988b). The context from which this
petition is taken differs slightly from the setting that is being discussed in this study, but the main
arguments can be carried over. Parallel development should be adopted over sequential
development to reduce the development cycle time, while increasing development efficiency and
preventing the “next bench” syndrome1.
Taking into account the expected benefits of adopting a parallel development process, perhaps the
spiral of knowledge creation can be optimised by not viewing it as a spiral and reconnecting the
knowledge creation modes in a chaotic or random fashion (figure 5). If knowledge creation can take
1 This construct is explained as a situation in sequential development where products are designed based on the feedback provided by the co-worker at the next bench, after asking what kind of product he or she would like to see (Takeuchi & Nonaka, 1986). Because this issue is outside of the scope of this study, it will not be elaborated on.
19
place in multiple knowledge creation modes
simultaneously, perhaps the outcome of this
process will benefit from the advantages that are
hinted at by Takeuchi and Nonaka (1986).
The knowledge creation spiral suffers from a
similar problem as the four modes of knowledge
creation: an insufficient explanation of
constructs. This problem is in part carried over by
the fundamental role the four modes of
knowledge creation have in the knowledge creation spiral, but the way the theory is presented, is not
improved. Furthermore, the order in which the modes of knowledge creation are suggested to take
place is an interesting topic for discussion, as an argument is made for switching from a spiral in
which the modes have sequential interdependence, to a chaos with parallel interdependence.
The knowledge creation spiral forms the core of the Hypertext organisation design. It is argued (e.g.
Nonaka, 1988a, 1988b, 1991, 1994; Nonaka, von Krogh & Voelpel, 2006; Nonaka, Toyama & Konno,
2000) that implementing the triggering conditions for the knowledge creation modes is necessary,
but not sufficient to optimise organisational knowledge creation activities. Subsections 2.2.4. through
2.2.7. will supplement the knowledge creation spiral with measures that are expected to improve
knowledge creation effectiveness.
2.2.4. Knowledge scaling
Knowledge is created by individuals. An organisation cannot create knowledge without individuals
within this organisation. Kogut and Zander (1992) argue that the sharing and transfer of knowledge
of individuals and groups within an organisation is the reason why firms exist. Organisational
knowledge creation is a process of amplifying the creation of knowledge by the individuals within the
organisation and maintaining this knowledge within the knowledge network of the organisation
(Nonaka, 1994; Arikan, 2009). The enlargement of an individual’s knowledge plays a vital role in
coming to a model for knowledge creation which builds on the four modes of knowledge creation
and the spiral in which they function. The concept of enlarging an individual’s knowledge is
multidimensional because it can be explained from the different interpretations of the term
enlarging. This subsection will elaborate on the enlargement of an individual’s knowledge from the
perspectives of increasing the availability of a knowledge resource in the organisation (Coff, Coff &
Eastvold, 2006) and enlargement of knowledge within the individual through an interaction between
Figure 5: Suggested alternative interdependence in knowledge creation spiral
20
experience and rationality (Nonaka, 1994). The first explanation of the enlargement of an individual’s
knowledge isn’t included in Nonaka’s argument for the Hypertext organisational design, but is used
in this study because it offers valuable insight into the potential drawbacks of externalisation, the
codification of tacit knowledge, and the dissemination of knowledge.
Knowledge transfer is a multiplication effort, because unlike in a basic transaction relationship, the
knowledge source does not lose the amount of knowledge the receiver gains. Disseminating
knowledge is therefore a way of enlarging an individual’s knowledge within an organisational
context. Every time knowledge is transferred from one actor to another, its volume grows. As a
result, an organisation is more capable of matching the knowledge resource availability with the
resource requirement.
Coff, Coff and Eastvold (2006) state that the value of tacit knowledge is derived from its inimitability.
Leveraging tacit knowledge means that the valuable resource can be used more widely throughout
the organisation. Because tacit knowledge is often firm-specific, which means that a market for tacit
knowledge is unfeasible. If knowledge is abundant, the resource isn’t scarce and as such not
expected to be a source of competitive advantage. Furthermore, the tacit nature is expected to make
it hard for the firm to find prospective employees who possess this resource (Coff, Coff & Eastvold,
2006). To overcome situations in which the demand for tacit knowledge surpasses the supply, tacit
knowledge has to be scaled up. If the competitive advantage originates from the possession of
particular tacit knowledge, scaled up tacit knowledge can strengthen the advantage. Coff, Coff and
Eastvold (2006) anticipate limitations to the scaling of tacit knowledge. They expect the strategic
value of tacit knowledge to diminish if the knowledge is scaled up to where it becomes available to
competitors. A factor adding to this effect is the requirement of partially codifying tacit knowledge to
lubricate the dissemination process. Codified knowledge is more easily accessible by competitors by
hiring people away from the originating firm. In conclusion, the enlarging an individual’s knowledge
can assist an organisation in fulfilling its knowledge resource requirements, while at the same time
opening up possibilities for the knowledge to spill over to competitors (Coff, Coff & Eastvold, 2006).
Nonaka (1994) sees the enlargement of individual knowledge as an interaction between experience
and rationality, after which it is crystallised into unique, personal perspectives. These personal
perspectives on knowledge are based on individual believes and value systems, and play a role in the
interpretation of shared experiences in the conceptualisation.
The way Nonaka (1994) explains the enlargement of individual knowledge focuses on improving the
quality of knowledge through increasing the variety of personal experiences and knowledge
experience. Having varied but related experiences enables the individual to connect and integrate
distant knowledge sources to create new perspectives. Monotonous or routine tasks on the other
21
hand, are expected to inhibit creative thinking and the formation of new knowledge (Nonaka, 1994).
Knowledge experience is described as “an embodiment of knowledge through a deep personal
commitment into bodily experience” (Nonaka, 1994, p. 22). This notion is derived from oriental
culture and from Descartes. In reference to Varela et. al (1991), Nonaka explains embodiment as “a
reflection in which body and mind have been brought together”. Commitment to bodily experience is
described using Nishida (1960) as “an intentional self-involvement in the object and situation which
transcends the subject-object distinction, thereby providing access to ‘pure experience’” (Nonaka,
1994, p. 22). In this paper, knowledge experience is interpreted as the merging of the individual’s
perspectives with the knowledge, to become intuitive instead of rational. Knowledge experience
reflects a true commitment to knowledge.
Nonaka (1994) goes on to explain that improvements to knowledge quality through having varied
experiences and the knowledge experience have to be balanced by the ability to reflect on
experience. The author calls this knowledge of rationality. Knowledge of rationality has a place in the
combination phase of knowledge creation. Reflection is necessary to create discrete declarative
knowledge and ignores the importance of commitment by centring on reinterpreting existing explicit
knowledge.
Concluding from Nonaka’s assessment, it can be said that enlarging individual knowledge involves
improving the knowledge quality through having varied experiences in the creation process, having
high commitment to knowledge through unifying the individual with the knowledge (knowledge
experience), and being able to reflect on experience (knowledge of rationality) while combining
perspectives to form new knowledge.
2.2.5. Self-organising teams
Socialisation can be facilitated by the establishment of a knowledge creation field or self-organising
team in which collaboration leads to new concepts (Nonaka, 1994). This field can cross organisational
boundaries, as shown by examples from Japanese industry where suppliers are involved in various
stages of new product development, and customers in the case of new product planning (Dyer &
Nobeoka, 1998). The notion of a field or context in which knowledge creation takes place is
supported in several publications (e.g. von Krogh, 1998; Grant, 1996; Tanriverdi & Iacono, 1998;
Nonaka, Toyama & Konno, 2000; Alavi & Leidner, 2001; Nonaka, von Krogh & Voelpel, 2006).
Takeuchi and Nonaka (1986) describe self-organizing teams as project teams that take on a self-
organising character as they are driven to a state of zero-information. What they mean by this is that
the team cannot rely on prior knowledge. A state of zero-information introduces ambiguity and
22
fluctuation to the organisation. Over time, the uncertain situation will develop into a new dynamic
order and the project team will begin to operate like a start-up company by taking initiatives and
risks, and developing an independent agenda.
Project teams become self-organising when they enjoy autonomy, become self-transcendent and
exhibit cross-fertilisation (Takeuchi & Nonaka, 1986; Nonaka, 1988a; Nonaka, Toyama & Konno,
2000). Three examples of successful project teams are provided to support the argument for
autonomy (IBM’s Boca Raton operations, the Honda City project and NEC’s PC 8000 development –
Takeuchi & Nonaka, 1986, p. 139-140). In these cases the influence of top management on the daily
activities of the team members is limited to providing guidance, resources and moral support. The
teams are free to make their own decisions. Nonaka, Toyama and Konno (2000) link autonomy to
increases in the motivation of organisation members to create new knowledge, the commitment of
individuals to the knowledge creation process and the organisation, and it is expected that autonomy
improves the chances of accessing valuable information held by individuals.
Self-transcendence is explained as a process in which “one reaches out beyond the boundaries of
one’s own existence” (Nonaka, Toyama & Konno, 2000). Individuals can transcend themselves in
each of the four modes of knowledge creation through diminishing barriers between individuals
(promoting socialisation), integrating individual intentions and ideas into the group’s mental world
(promoting externalisation), recontextualising knowledge which transcends the group level
(promoting combination), and individuals accessing the knowledge realm of the group (promoting
internalisation) (Nonaka, Toyama & Konno, 2000). Self-transcendence can be achieved by setting
challenging targets in which contradictions have to be solved (Nonaka, 1988a).
Self-transcendence of project teams means that the teams devise ways to challenge prevailing ideas
and override the status quo from what appear to be contradictory goals, to make big discoveries. The
teams are enveloped in a relentless quest for elevating their own goals throughout the development
process (Takeuchi & Nonaka, 1986).
The third characteristic displayed by self-organising teams is cross-fertilisation, which describes the
interaction between team members coming from various functionally specialised backgrounds. The
process of cross-fertilisation is excellently illustrated by a quote from one of the FX-3500 project
team members at Fuji-Xerox: “When all the team members are located in one large room, someone’s
information becomes yours, without even trying. You then start thinking in terms of what’s best or
second best for that group at large and not only about where you stand. If everyone understands the
other person’s position, then each of us is more willing to give in, or at least to try to talk to each
other. Initiatives emerge as a result” (Takeuchi & Nonaka, 1986, p. 140).
23
Self-organising teams can trigger knowledge creation through building mutual trust among members.
This will accelerate the sharing of tacit knowledge among members. The sharing of experiences to
help build common perspectives is an operationalization of the socialisation phase of the knowledge
creation spiral.
Common perspective can also be built by conceptualising the shared tacit knowledge through
continuous dialogue. This is the externalisation phase of the knowledge creation spiral. An important
thing to note in the context of creating common perspective is that the dialogue should always leave
room for revision or useful negotiation; participants should be able to express ideas and opinions
freely.
Although the knowledge creation field construct is exhaustively discussed by Nonaka and several
authors with whom he has collaborated, the discussions do not contain references to empirical
testing of the causal relations. Nonaka, Toyama and Konno (2000) have conceptually developed the
knowledge creation field construct into a more detailed understanding of the social aspects of
knowledge development and relabelled the construct as Ba. Ba appears to be grounded in Japanese
culture, which may have led to the authors taking the construct’s validity for granted. It is plausible
that being embedded in a setting where the proposed causal relations are taken for granted has
caused the omission of providing empirical evidence to support the anecdotal claims made in this
context.
2.2.6. Managing organisational knowledge creation
To promote an organisation-wide climate for effective knowledge creation, Nonaka (1994) proposes
that organisations create conditions of creative chaos, redundancy of information, and requisite
variety. Nonaka, Toyama and Konno (2000) introduce the fourth condition of love, care, trust and
commitment to emphasise its role in the building of information redundancy.
Creative chaos can be generated out of environmental fluctuation (Nonaka, 1994) or by creating an
ambitious but ambiguous vision (Nonaka, 1988a). Environmental fluctuation or ambitious but
ambiguous tasks force the employees to adopt a new perspective on the challenges they face. They
will have to harmonise the contradictions in their task to give new meaning and “think outside of the
box”. The sense of crisis forces a breakdown of routines and habits, which prevents path-dependence
(Nonaka, Toyama & Konno, 2000). Top management has to instigate this process, by creating an
ambitious but ambiguous vision and allowing self-organising teams the freedom to reconsider
fundamental thinking and come up with novel ways of tackling problems.
Organisational members will have to reflect upon their actions and focus their attention towards
24
forming and solving new problems. Without this reflection, the fluctuation will not lead to creative
chaos, but to destructive chaos2. For the chaos to be creative, it is important that there is an
emphasis on reflection-in-action through which inconsistencies are resolved (Nonaka, 1988a). An
example of the creation of creative chaos comes from Nonaka’s 1988 case description of the
development of the Honda City car (Nonaka, 1988b, p.10)3, “… Some say Honda not only puts
researchers upstairs without a ladder, but also sets the first floor on fire”. This quote is a metaphor
for how the researchers are introduced to the problem of finding themselves upstairs, without a
ladder. By setting the first floor on fire, the creation of chaos, the researchers are forced to come up
with novel ideas of tackling the problem.
Redundancy of information is the conscious overlapping of company information, business activities
and management responsibilities to speed up concept creation through promoting the sharing of
tacit knowledge and helping organisational members understanding their role in the organisation
(Nonaka, 1994; Nonaka, Toyama & Konno, 2000). Redundancy of information is caused by sharing of
information which is not immediately required by individuals. The sharing of this “extra” information
promotes sharing of individual tacit knowledge. The overlapping information helps members sense
what others are trying to articulate. Information redundancy can also help to reduce the impact of
managerial hierarchy and promote mutual trust through eliminating cheating by organisational
members (Nonaka, 1994).
Information redundancy can be built into the organisation by adopting a policy in which information
overlap and internal competition are harmonised. An example being the creation of multiple self-
organising teams, tasked with the same problem. The reflective process in which the most useful
outcome is determined, allows the creation of additional information redundancy. The competitive
aspect of the development process forces team members to feel a sense of urgency (creative chaos).
Strategic rotation is another way to build information redundancy into the organisation. Some
management styles advocate job rotation, cycling workers across various workstations to stimulate
the perception of job variety and increase their understanding of other tasks within the production
process.
Information redundancy increases the amount of information to be processed and can lead to
2 From Nonaka’s explanation of creative chaos (Nonaka, 1988a; Nonaka, 1994; Nonaka, Toyama & Konno, 2000) it remains unclear how to
prevent destructive chaos.
3 This example was originally used by Takeuchi & Nonaka (1986). While explaining the introduction of tension in self-organising teams, an
executive in charge of development at Honda is quoted to have said: “It’s like putting the team members on the second floor, removing the
ladder, and telling them to jump or else. I believe creativity is born by pushing people against the wall and pressuring them almost to the
extreme” (Takeuchi & Nonaka, 1986, p. 139)
25
information overload (Nonaka, Toyama & Konno, 2000). For efficiency it is important that members
should know who owns which information and they should be related to the least number of
colleagues so that they are not loaded with information in the excess of each one’s cognitive capacity
(Nonaka, 1994).
Requisite variety is the result of finding an optimum in team composition. Nonaka (1994) explains
this concept using Ashby (1956), who proposes that organisations can maximise efficiency by
creating a degree of internal diversity that matches the diversity it must process. If the organisation
faces high diversity in the activities it wishes to carry out, the efficiency will be higher if there is a
high degree of diversity among the people performing these tasks. In other words, the team
composition is conducive to knowledge creation effectiveness.
Requisite variety can be realised in two ways (Nonaka, Toyama & Konno, 2000). The first is by using a
flat and flexible organisational structure in which the units are interlinked with an information
network. This provides timely and equal access to the varied knowledge stock. The second way to
realise requisite variety is by using a personnel rotation system which enables employees to develop
overlapping knowledge to deal with the changing environmental requirements.
The building of interpersonal love, care, trust and commitment is emphasised by Nonaka, Toyama
and Konno (2000) to facilitate knowledge sharing and for the self-transcending process of knowledge
creation to occur. An atmosphere in which employees feel safe in sharing their knowledge prevents
the monopolising of knowledge assets by individuals. Organisational leaders must therefore work to
establish high employee commitment to sharing and creating knowledge, based on the knowledge
vision of the organisation.
Love, care, trust and commitment can be built by inspiring team members to become committed to
their goal of knowledge creation. They need to be selfless and altruistic in this respect. Positive
thinking is expected to prevent the creation of personal barriers that inhibit the sharing of
knowledge.
2.2.7. Middle-up-down management
In a 1988 article Nonaka discusses the development of the Honda City, an at the time ground
breaking concept which was conceived by an autonomous team of young engineers. The case is used
as an example of a new type of organisation design, which combines aspects of top-down and
bottom-up management.
Middle-up-down management combines the progressive knowledge creation from bottom-up
management, while promoting knowledge dissemination through the use of a hierarchical structure,
26
akin top-down management. More importantly, knowledge creation is likened to a parallel motion
instead of a sequential motion, which has efficiency implications.
In middle-up-down management middle managers form the core of the management style, as
opposed to top management (top-down management) or entrepreneurial individuals (bottom-up
management). The role of top management is to determine an overall direction and create time
budgets. Middle managers work within these constraints to translate the many visions of
entrepreneurial individuals upwards through the organisational hierarchy. While moving these
visions upwards, the middle is responsible for establishing a larger vision which is influential in the
creation of future individual visions. Middle management works with upper and lower level
personnel to complete this task.
Top management can influence middle management through the selection of staffing for middle
management. This is an important aspect of the corporate strategy. Top management stipulates a
broad direction, which the middle will use as a basis to create knowledge with. This vision should be
chaos inducing by consisting of highly ambitious goals, while being open to multiple interpretations.
It is often formulated in contradicting terms (Nonaka, 1988a, 1991, 1994). Organisational chaos and
fluctuation positively affect information-creation activities (Nonaka, 1988a). These types of visions
can take shape in the form of initiating limit-pursuing projects, key technology projects that will be
relevant in the future, or development of new products and markets (Nonaka, 1988a).
In an interaction with the top, the middle secures the resources they require for the knowledge
creation. This is where top-down style planning and bottom-up style knowledge creation comes into
play when moving from the broad direction to stricter concepts. In other words, the top lays out the
conceptual foundations and measurement units which lie at the basis of the resource allocation,
while the middle turns it into reality. This middle is often comprised of multidisciplinary teams, led by
middle management. By serving as the starting point of the knowledge creation process, middle
management serves to reduce chaos and fluctuation. They can be seen as the change agent in the
organisation’s process of self-renewal (Nonaka, 1988a; Ulrich, 1998).
Communication plays a role in realising the vision of the entrepreneurial middle. They have to survive
the criticism from other group members to realise this vision. Ideas must challenge the stability of
the organisation, while involving both the top and bottom of the firm. Vision realisation firstly
involves the establishment of creative chaos, amplifying this chaos and focusing on specific
contradictions to solve the problem. After creating chaos and solving contradictions, self-organising
teams are formed that try to create a new meaning out of chaos.
During the synchronisation of concept creation, information travels upwards and downwards from
the organisational middle. This process is likened to passing the ball laterally in a rugby game, where
all the team members move forward synchronously (Takeuchi & Nonaka, 1986).
27
A final element of middle-up-down management is the creation of new order through the transfer of
learning and unlearning. Unlearning is Nonaka’s interpretation of preventing path-dependent
behaviour. Path dependence is a firm’s tendency to keep doing what it is already doing (Kogut &
Zander, 1991). In path dependence, knowledge advances on the same basis as it was created; using
the current information and ways of doing things. Unlearning means purposefully moving away from
current conventions and creating new ways of doing things.
In closing, middle-up-down management combines the high intensity of organisational knowledge
creation from bottom-up management with the responsiveness that results from organisational
hierarchies in top-down management. It does so by concentrating all knowledge creation activities
around the organisational middle, using self-organising teams, while operating in a hierarchical
organisational structure. These contradicting aspects form a metaphor for the creation of chaos and
establishing contradictions to promote creative behaviour.
2.3. Returning to the Hypertext organisation
The underlying principles of the Hypertext organisation design have been explained in detail in the
preceding section. This section will combine these principles and construct the model from its
building blocks.
The Hypertext organisation design (figure 6) has been introduced as a three-layered organisation in
which employees create knowledge using the knowledge creation spiral, while moving through these
layers. The business-system layer and the project-system layer’s complementing characteristics
support the processes of combination and internalisation (business-system layer), and socialisation
and externalisation (project-system layer). The knowledge-base layer functions as an organisational
knowledge repository in which newly created knowledge is stored and from which it will be
distributed back into the organisation.
Self-organising teams are created from the business-system layer, to create knowledge using
socialisation and externalisation in the project-system layer. When this task is completed, the team
members move to the knowledge-base layer to document and store their findings, before returning
to the business-system layer. The knowledge creation process is continued in this layer, but this time
focusing on combination and internalisation. Employees remain in the business-system layer until
they are called upon to form a new self-organising team and move to the project-system layer.
The knowledge creation process is seen as a spiral (see 2.2.3.) in which the four modes of knowledge
creation (see 2.2.2.) function interdependently to increase the knowledge assets in overall size (see
28
2.2.4.) and branching them out to form new knowledge assets (see 2.2.2.). All the while, the
knowledge assets move back and forth in the tacit-explicit continuum (see 2.2.1.).
The Hypertext organisation structurally supports the middle-up-down management model (see
2.2.7.) and embodies the cyclical motion of knowledge creation in a stream of employees throughout
the organisation structure. It provides the organisation with the ability to acquire, create, exploit and
accumulate new knowledge continuously, in a cyclical process. Being able to switch between
“contexts” of knowledge creation enables the Hypertext organisation to respond to changing internal
and external knowledge requirements.
Figure 6: Reimagined Hypertext Organisation (based on Nonaka, 1994)
It is unclear to which degree the organisation can move through the three layers. From what is
written, one can conclude that the shifts between the organisational layers can apply to the
organisation as a whole, which would mean that the entire organisation moves into the project-
system layer simultaneously. On the other hand, Nonaka’s explanation (1994) can also be interpreted
as a scenario where only parts of the organisation move into the project-system layer. In the latter
case all layers are occupied at any given moment. A third interpretation is that the Hypertext
organisation design should be viewed as a non-practical, stylised view of the organisation. If the
conceptualisation of three different layers is dropped because a practical distinction between the
layers is based on aspects such as the level of autonomy, self-transcendence and cross-fertilisation,
29
what is left is a model that can be implemented in practice without the impact of having to move
(parts of) the organisation. If Nonaka had meant for the model to be viewed in this light, it is
expected he would have explained it as such. This leads to the conclusion that this third
interpretation is potentially distant from what is intended.
How the individual building blocks from the preceding sections fall into place is also not thoroughly
explained by Nonaka (1994). By piecing the elements together one can come to an understanding of
how the author has envisioned the model. The article would benefit from a greater emphasis on the
coherence between the model’s elements. Because of this lack of clarity, the following explanatory
segment is based on an interpretation of Nonaka (1991, 1994):
In the project-system layer the modes of socialisation and externalisation take place after being
triggered by the creation of self-organising teams and promoting inter- and intra-team dialogue and
discussion. After a period of documenting and storing the new knowledge in the knowledge-base
layer, the business-system layer is where the modes of combination and internalisation take place
through coordination between employees and applying the newly created knowledge. These modes
are triggered by the documenting of the new knowledge and by experimenting with the new
knowledge in day-to-day activities.
In the project-system layer the top management sets out the overall direction and creates budgets.
The direction should be formulated in ambitious, but ambiguous goals; examples are provided as
“limit pursuing projects”, “key technology projects” and “new product or market development”. The
ambitious, but ambiguous goals lead to a goal interpretation where contradictions have to be solved.
The goal interpretation and potential environmental fluctuation introduce creative chaos to the
organisation, which is expected to be conducive to knowledge creation effectiveness. The knowledge
creation effectiveness is further enhanced by love, care, trust and commitment, redundancy of
information, and requisite variety. Requisite variety also has an effect on cross fertilisation in self-
organising teams, which helps in unlearning.
The parallel operating self-organising teams are led by middle managers, who secure the resources
that top management has made available and form the main communication hub between the upper
and lower organisational levels. The middle management is also responsible for chaos reduction and
the creation of a new order from the ambitious, but ambiguous goals. They do this together with the
members of the self-organising teams by harmonising the contradicting terms and attaching meaning
to the task with which they have been entrusted. In this way, the middle management serves as a
change agent. The factors affecting the effectiveness and efficiency of knowledge creation in self-
organising teams are cross fertilisation, autonomy and self-transcendence.
30
How knowledge creation through combination and internalisation in the hierarchy of the business-
system layer takes place is not exhaustively discussed by Nonaka, apart from the elaboration he has
provided on the processes of combination and internalisation. The suggested causal relation
between organisational hierarchy, or top-down management, and combination and internalisation
(Nonaka, 1988b), is hypothesised to stem from absence of information and decision problems at
lower organisational levels, which reduces the opportunity to explore solutions, or deviate from the
path that has been set out by the top management. Under the top-down management system, there
is a low personal interaction with information, which negatively affects the amount of knowledge
absorption and accumulation. From these arguments it is clear that top-down management is ill-
equipped for socialisation or externalisation and more suitable for combination and internalisation.
Prerequisites for this side of the Hypertext organisation design are the processes of coordination
among employees and documentation of existing knowledge (combination process), and promoting
experimentation with newly created knowledge in a trial-and-error fashion (internalisation process).
A network of the most important conceptualised relations in the Hypertext organisation design is
provided in figure 7. Note that the arrows don’t indicate causal relations, but serve to connect
constructs with their underlying principles or triggering mechanisms.
The items are grouped to highlight their interconnectedness and context in the model. Several boxes
have been coloured to emphasise their position in the network. The four modes of knowledge
creation have been coloured blue and form the central assumption on which the Hypertext
organisation is built. Socialisation and externalisation are linked to the project-system layer because
this layer is intended to stimulate these two modes of knowledge creation. Similarly, combination
and internalisation are linked to the business-system layer. Within the modes of knowledge creation-
container there are an additional five (yellow) boxes depicting the triggering conditions for each of
the modes.
The containers effectiveness of self-organising teams, middle-up-down management, managing
organisational knowledge creation and knowledge scaling are placed below modes of knowledge
creation for layout purposes. These items are important for the successful implementation of the
Hypertext organisation in a direct relation or indirect via the modes of knowledge creation.
31
Figure 7: Network of conceptualised relations in the Hypertext organisation design, based on an interpretation of Nonaka (1988a, 1988b, 1991, 1994)
32
2.4. Potential shortcomings
Having explained Nonaka’s (1994) Hypertext organisation design in sections 2.2. and 2.3., it is time
for reflection. This section will discuss where the Hypertext model falls short and provides an
overview of the discussion surrounding the assumptions that lie at the foundation of the model.
Table 1 presents the main elements in Nonaka’s Hypertext organisation design and gives a summary
of the discussions that surround these elements in the context of this study. The main points of
criticism on the Hypertext organisation design can be summed up as the insufficient explanation of
constructs and of the causal relations between constructs, the relative absence of empirical support
for proposed relations, the potential for a moderating effect of Japanese culture on the proposed
relations, and the choice for sequential knowledge creation being incongruent with Nonaka’s
preference for parallel development.
Table 1: Overview of discussion surrounding main elements in Hypertext organisation design
Knowledge typology Related to the assumption that lie at the basis of the modes of knowledge creation.
Tacit knowledge – inarticulable
Explicit knowledge – articulable
Constructs are insufficiently explained in comparison to other authors explaining the same construct. Without these alternative sources, comprehension of this typology will be limited.
The eventual adoption of the concept of tacit-explicit continuum resolved the issue of describing tacit and explicit knowledge as discrete constructs.
Modes of knowledge creation Form the foundation for the knowledge creation spiral.
Socialisation, from tacit to tacit
Externalisation, from tacit to explicit
Combination, from explicit to explicit
Internalisation, from explicit to tacit
The process of socialisation is insufficiently explained using poor examples.
The process of externalisation has been discussed to great lengths, but Nonaka never clearly explains how tacit knowledge is converted into explicit knowledge. The process of packaging tacit knowledge in metaphor, converting this metaphor into analogy, and finally attaching meaning to the analogy, has the potential of damaging the message integrity.
Nonaka (1991, p. 99) admits to providing a poor example of how the process of combination functions, but omits to provide an alternative, more suitable explanation.
The process of internalisation is explained using a convoluted example which shrouded the explaining elements in unnecessary details. Nonetheless, the validity of all four modes has been proven in several instances of empirical testing. These instances, however, did not find support for the use of dialogue and metaphor in the externalisation phase.
33
Knowledge creation spiral A primary element of the Hypertext organisation design.
Knowledge assets moving through the modes of knowledge creation in a sequential fashion. Triggered by the creation of self-organising teams, promoting dialogue with metaphors and analogies, documentation and coordination between team members, and experimentation with knowledge assets.
The criticism on the modes of knowledge creation is carried over to the knowledge creation spiral, because the latter builds on the former.
Nonaka (1994) mentions that a focus on pure combination or socialisation can prove problematic, but doesn't explain the effects of focusing on pure internalisation or externalisation.
The causal relation between the proposed triggering mechanisms and the resulting modes of knowledge creation are not elaborated on or proven through empirical testing.
The order in which the modes of knowledge creation take place is taken for granted as a sequential process with a set order. Based on the findings of Choi and Lee (2002) and Nonaka's own argument for parallel development (Takeuchi & Nonaka, 1986), it may prove beneficial to explore alternative orders, or abandoning the sequential order for a parallel interpretation.
Self-organising teams Result of creating fields of interaction, facilitates
socialisation, led by middle management, plays essential role in knowledge creation in the Hypertext organisation design.
Teams led by middle management that are tasked with ambitious but ambiguous goals. Display high levels of autonomy, self-transcendence and cross-fertilisation.
The causal relations between the proposed supporting conditions and improvements to knowledge creation effectiveness are taken for granted too easily. Furthermore, these relations may be subject to moderating effects from the Japanese culture in which the theory is constructed.
Middle-up-down management Self-organising teams and by extension the knowledge
creation spiral and Hypertext organisation design. A hybrid management type that combines knowledge creation implications from top-down and bottom-up management styles. Middle managers form a communication hub by communicating top management vision downwards and the ideas of entrepreneurial individuals upwards.
An argument is made for parallel knowledge creation in middle-up-down management, whereas Nonaka shies away from this mechanism further on.
Middle-up-down management is presented in a purely conceptual fashion, lacking empirical grounding. The above criticism on validity also applies here.
Managing organisational knowledge creation Organisation-wide knowledge creation, the knowledge
creation spiral.
Redundancy of information, requisite variety, creative chaos and love, trust, care and commitment; factors which stimulate organisational knowledge creation.
Information redundancy may lead to information overload, as has been suggested by Nonaka, Toyama and Konno (2000).
34
Knowledge scaling Organisation-wide knowledge creation, the knowledge creation spiral.
Increasing knowledge asset volume by sharing knowledge. Knowledge scaling often requires the codification of tacit knowledge, which may lead to an erosion of competitive advantage due to increasing the imitability. Knowledge scaling increases the potential the knowledge asset availability to match or surpass the knowledge resource demand within the organisation. Conceptualised by Nonaka as the scaling of individual knowledge by crystallising knowledge into unique, personal perspectives, through an interaction between experience and rationality.
There is an argument to be made against the scaling of tacit knowledge because it can lead to the deterioration of the strategic value of knowledge. The current consensus is that the positive effects of knowledge scaling outweigh the potential negative effects.
Nonaka’s conceptualisation is to a great extent grounded in traditional Japanese philosophy and may not be applicable to western management.
The shortcoming of insufficient explanation of constructs and relations has been partially addressed
by including studies that have examined similar subjects and reviewing Nonaka’s work in the context
of an understanding that increases over time, through multiple publications. Testing and empirically
proving the validity of these constructs and the relations between them will significantly add to the
validity of the model as a whole. Overcoming this issue requires that all the constructs are sufficiently
explained, using proper examples and avoiding that certain constructs can be interpreted in multiple
ways. It will be difficult to prove the validity of constructs like tacit and explicit knowledge and the
absence of other constructs that can potentially complement this knowledge typology. This difficulty
stems from the current technological limitation of not being able to accurately measure how human
cognitive processing functions, without resorting to unethical procedures. We are therefore limited
to social constructs of what we believe to be the truth.
Similarly, the constructs that make up the knowledge creation spiral (socialisation, externalisation,
combination and internalisation) deserve a more concise explanation that moves away from the
current vagueness and frequent use of anecdotes. The triggering conditions that are suggested to
actuate the four modes are similar to the expected resulting behaviour, which creates doubt about
the validity of these relations. Finally, the examples that have been provided to explain the four
modes leave room for improvement. In several occasions the chosen examples achieve the exact
opposite of providing clarity.
These empirical issues have will not be solved in this study. The vastness of the testing that should be
performed to support all the proposed relations places this type of research outside of the realm of
reasonable expectations for a master thesis. The assertion that there is an insufficient explanation of
constructs and partial support for the relations between constructs leads to a problem within this
research. It is difficult to explain the elements of the Hypertext model based on the way they have
been presented by Nonaka without causing a bias when measuring perceptions of value and
applicability. This issue cannot be entirely circumvented in the research design, but attempts will be
made to explain the model in detail, while staying neutral.
35
The comment about the potential for a moderating effect of Japanese culture on the proposed
relations is provoked by the explanation provided to the process of knowledge scaling through
experience and rationality, where knowledge is suggested to become a bodily experience through
deep personal commitment (Nonaka, 1994, p. 22). The variable Japanese culture potentially holds a
moderating effect on the relationship between the independent variable knowledge scaling
technique and the dependent variable knowledge scaling outcome because Japanese culture may be
the variable which allows the causal relationship between independent and dependent variable to
take place. If the variable Japanese culture is left out of this causal equation, it is possible that the
relation does not exist as Nonaka has described it. Nonaka’s explanation of the relation is therefore
potentially distant from the distinction “westerners” make between body and mind, to the extent
that Nonaka’s elaboration on the enlargement of an individual’s knowledge (Nonaka, 1994, p. 21-22)
becomes alienating. It is however an interesting subject to study in a follow-up, because new
perspectives are by definition uncovered by exploring unfamiliar territory. More detailed suggestions
for follow-up studies will be provided in section 6.4.
The third potential shortcoming of the Hypertext model is formed by the decision to shape
knowledge creation as a sequence with a set order in which processes take place. The knowledge
creation spiral, and the shifts from the business-system layer to the project-system-layer and the
knowledge-base layer are difficult to interpret in an order that deviates from how Nonaka (1991,
1994) has described them. As has been mentioned toward the end of subsection 2.2.3. this is
striking, because of the author’s apparent preference4 for parallel processing. A suggestion has been
made to modify the conceptualisation of the knowledge creation spiral in subsection 2.2.3., which
will be returned to in section 6.4.
2.5. Conclusion
The main elements of Nonaka’s Hypertext organisation design are (1) the three-layered organisation
design with which the context in which knowledge is created is adapted to support the type of
knowledge creation activities that take place, (2) the combination of top-down and bottom-up
management’s knowledge creation characteristics in middle-up-down management, and (3) the
knowledge creation spiral that is conceptualised as a sequence of phases in which knowledge shifts
from tacit to explicit and back, while gaining in magnitude and momentum with every phase.
4 The assumption of a preference is based on the standpoint Nonaka has taken on sequential development (Takeuchi & Nonaka, 1986) and
attributing middle-up-down management with the advantage of facilitating knowledge creation in a parallel motion (Nonaka ,1988b).
36
The model contributes to knowledge creation theory by noting that knowledge creation can take
place in four modes where knowledge assets shift from tacit to explicit and back. These modes can
be managed to form a spiral where knowledge assets grow and gain momentum with the passing of
every mode. The notion of these conversion modes is novel and since its initial publication (Nonaka,
1991) has had considerable influence on the way knowledge management theory approaches the
process of knowledge creation.
The second contribution to knowledge management theory stems from another forbearer (Nonaka,
1988b), in which the knowledge management effects of top-down and bottom-up management are
assessed and combined into the hybrid form of middle-up-down management. This new type
appoints the middle management as a change agent by positioning it as a central hub where the
visions and directions of top management and initiatives of entrepreneurial individuals meet.
Middle-up-down management proposes the use of self-organising teams which operate in a situation
of creative chaos to become less path dependent and truly innovative.
The third contribution to knowledge management theory is to be found in the way the model is
furnished with knowledge creation enhancing conditions, which include creative chaos, redundancy
of information, requisite variety, and love, trust, care and commitment. These conditions are
conceptualised to form a set of facilitators which together should support the knowledge creation
spiral.
The fourth and final contribution to knowledge management theory is the solution Nonaka (1991)
provides to the problem of converting tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge. Through the use of
delicate metaphors and analogies, unarticulable knowledge can finally be transferred. It must be
noted that this principle is received with scepticism (e.g. Ambrosini & Bowman, 2001; Gourlay, 2006).
Ambrosini and Bowman (2001) propose storytelling and cognitive mapping as alternative methods of
transferring tacit knowledge.
The model can be implemented in practice by firstly emphasising knowledge scaling through gaining
experience with newly created knowledge and rationally reflecting on improving processes and
designs. Furthermore, an environment should be created that is conducive to successful knowledge
creation. This entails an internal environment with requisite variety, redundancy of information,
creative chaos and high love, trust, care and commitment.
The organisation should be aware of the knowledge requirements they are facing and manage their
knowledge creation activities to match these requirements. This means facilitating the sharing of
tacit knowledge through the creation of fields of interaction (self-organising teams), the conversion
of tacit to explicit knowledge through the promotion of dialogue, the sharing of explicit knowledge
by endorsing the documentation of existing knowledge and coordination between team members,
37
and the conversion of explicit to tacit knowledge by allowing experimentation with newly created
knowledge. Following the triggering mechanisms for the four modes of knowledge creation forces
the organisation to move through the three layers of the Hypertext model. The creation of self-
organising teams moves the organisation into the project-system layer, the documentation and
storing of knowledge moves the organisation to the knowledge base layer, while the coordination
between team members returns the organisation to the business-system layer.
In closing the Hypertext organisation model can be described as a considerably complex and
revolutionary organisation design. By letting the company cycle through the design based on the
knowledge requirements it faces, the organisation can combine knowledge creation aspects of rigid
top-down organisations with those of flexible bottom-up organisations. The model is constructed
from building blocks that have separately had great influence on the direction knowledge
management literature has taken in the last twenty years. These building blocks are also the main
shortcoming of the Hypertext organisation model, because there is little empirical support for the
validity of the constructs and the relationships between them.
The model is currently built on what appear to be shaky foundations. The rationale is sound, and
initial empirical testing has proven supportive of the hypothesised relations, but there remain several
holes in the conceptualisation. But the nature of the aforementioned theoretical shortcomings does
not warrant writing the model off as having low value for knowledge creation. Though the construct
validity and the implied causal relations remain to be tested, they all appear to be very plausible.
Addressing these theoretical issues will strengthen the model’s position in knowledge management
theory, but remains outside of the scope of this study. Alternatively, assessing the model’s value and
applicability from a practical standpoint will also contribute to knowledge management theory. The
value and applicability of the model for knowledge creation in knowledge intensive companies will be
tested in the remainder of this paper.
38
3. Methodology
After the presentation and theoretical exploration of the model in the previous chapter, this chapter
discusses how the model’s value and applicability will be tested in practice. The chapter starts with
an introduction of the case company in which the study was conducted, followed by an overview of
the research methodology and the operationalization.
3.1. Introduction of the case company
The case company was selected because of the importance knowledge creation has in the quality of
its service offering and the company’s reliance on innovative capacity. Knowledge is the primary
resource the company uses in the production of its services. By extension, the organisation’s capacity
to create new knowledge is of great importance in protecting its competitive position. This company
has characteristics of a knowledge intensive company because most work at the company is of an
intellectual nature and college-level educated workers form a major part of the workforce (Swart &
Kinnie, 2003). It can be said that knowledge has more importance than other resources in protecting
the firm’s competitive position. Following Starbuck (1992), this characteristic qualifies the case
company as a knowledge intensive company. The case company can be classified as a NACE division
72.2 company in the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions’
definition of knowledge-intensive businesses (European Foundation for the Improvement of Living
and Working Conditions, 2005).
The case company’s classification as a knowledge intensive company means that changes to the
Hypertext model in bringing it closer to practice will likely have a stronger effect on this type of
organisation than companies from other business sectors. Furthermore, it is expected that
respondents from this type of organisation have a strong affiliation with knowledge creation, which
should result in more exhaustive input for the topics that are discussed in this study.
In the years prior to the study, participative observations were made of the company’s pragmatic
style of knowledge creation, which appears to be a result of stimulating labour satisfaction and a
reliance on individual competences. The company’s management was not aware of the Hypertext
model before this study was conducted, but several elements of the model have been witnessed to
be in place already, which make the case company a relevant setting to generalise the model to.
Teamwork and dialogue are the main drivers for knowledge dissemination, similar to how Nonaka
has conceptualised the triggers for socialisation and externalisation. The organisational structure also
shows strong similarities with how Nonaka has described the project-system layer. Self-organising
39
teams at the case company enjoy high levels of autonomy, cross-fertilisation and self-transcendence.
The company’s top management is responsible for determining a broad overall direction, after which
the middle management works with entrepreneurial individuals to translate these ambitious and
sometimes ambiguous goals into reality. The aspects of a pragmatic approach to knowledge
management and the observed similarities between the company and elements of the model render
this case company a suitable selection to conduct this research in.
The case company was established in the early 90’s and is considered an internet pioneer in the
Netherlands. The organisation’s original focus was on software products catered for schools. This
later developed into award winning websites and web applications for some of the largest Dutch
companies. They currently employ around 90 people, of whom around 20% are in managing
positions. The company is based in Enschede (NL) and are an integral part of the CeeCee, an
industrial cluster of companies from various creative industries.
Figure 8: Case company organisation design
The organisation is designed along a matrix in which five departments can be distinguished based on
activities (figure 8). Each of these departments is managed by a department head. Overlapping these
departments are four project teams which are tasked with developing web applications for particular
industries (2 teams), specialised in short running internet-campaigns (1 team), and a team to take on
various smaller projects (1 team). The project teams are led by one or more middle managers.
40
Besides these project teams, there are departments responsible for service and maintenance, and
hosting and IT support. Finally, there is financial and support staff who form a separate department.
The ability to efficiently create new knowledge plays an integral role in the way the case company
competes with other organisations in the internet sector. The company prides itself for employing
highly talented personnel and is able to keep turnover low, among others through offering a one-of-
a-kind benefits program.
The case company exhibits many characteristics of middle-up-down management. The project-team
managers are the combining factor that shape knowledge creation activities and relay this to top
management. This all occurs within the strategic goals of the organisation, which are formulated by
the company’s top and middle management combined. The project teams enjoy high autonomy, high
environmental fluctuation, medium levels of knowledge sharing, and medium levels of strategic
rotation. The management style can be described as supportive.
3.2. Research methodology
The case study is performed using participative observation and informal in-depth interviews during
the first months of the study, with semi-structured group interviews nearing the end. The in-depth
interviews were helpful in formulating the research questions, while the participative observation
assisted in discovering background information about the case company. The semi-structured group
interviews serve as the primary data collecting method.
Semi-structured interviews are chosen over other methods of data collecting because it will be easier
to find respondents willing to sacrifice 45 minutes of their time to talk about their work, than
administering questionnaires or performing experiments that potentially take longer. This type of
interview also leaves room for storytelling when the interviewees are unable to formulate their
answers without the use of metaphors. Additionally, it may prove useful to change the order of the
interview topics, depending on the flow of the interview; structured interviews don’t offer this
advantage. Unstructured interviews were discarded as an option, because too much freedom during
the interviewing process may affect the usefulness of the outcomes.
The interviews have taken place in a meeting room at the case company’s office. This location is a
familiar setting for the interviewees and should not have a negative effect on their comfort level,
such as would be the case if an unfamiliar location was chosen. A low comfort level of interviewees
can adversely affect the validity of the interview outcomes. Other reasons why a meeting room at
41
the case company’s office is a suitable location to perform the interviews are that there should be
few to no interruptions during the process and it saves the respondents effort and time to travel to
an alternative location.
The interviews were scheduled to take place on separate days and were processed immediately
afterwards. This prevented the loss of data or confusing outcomes across different interviews.
A total of five interviews have been conducted with groups of around three interviewees. The group
format is chosen to allow discussions to develop between the participants and the effect this may
have on the completeness of the answers (Krueger, 1994). The interviewees will be able to help each
other in formulating answers and can inspire others to articulate aspects that would not have been
mentioned in a one-on-one interview. The interview topics may be perceived to be distant from the
respondents due to them being taken for granted, or subconsciously accepted. The discussions that
may develop within the groups are expected to lead to a formulation of answers that otherwise
would not have been articulated as easily. This can be compared to articulating tacit knowledge,
because the respondents are assumed to be aware of their role in organisational knowledge
creation, but may experience difficulties in expressing what they know because the awareness exists
at a subconscious level.
A second advantage emerges from the respondents being surrounded by their peers while being
interviewed. Being among peers is expected to reduce respondent anxiety levels while being
interviewed, whereas a typical one-on-one interview does not have this advantage. Lower anxiety
levels are expected to lead to more open discussions and high quality answers.
A third reason for using group interviews is that the groups are sampled from existing teams. The
inter-respondent familiarity and teamwork that results from this purposive sampling is expected to
improve the discussions and deliver meaningful, in-depth answers (Krueger, 1994). The sampling also
makes it easier for the respondents to relate to the interview items concerning self-organising teams.
The fourth reason for using group interviews as the primary method of data collection is that this
approach lessens the time investment for data collection, while still covering a sufficient number of
respondents to be representative of the target population (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2009). As
has been explained above, the case company is divided in a number of project teams and by
interviewing small groups of members from each of these teams and one group of members from
the departments Maintenance & Support and Hosting & IT support, it is assumed that the interview
outcomes are a good representation of the consensus on these topics in the organisation.
The foremost disadvantage of using group interviews is that the interviewer has to take notes while
also being responsible for moderating the discussions (Sim, 1998). This can cause a cognitive
overload, which reduces the efficiency with which the discussion is led, or negatively affect the
42
quality of the notes that are taken. An attempt is made to overcome this issue by limiting the group
sizes to around three respondents and using an audio recording device to capture the entirety of the
answers provided during each interview. The interviewer can use timestamps to use as a memento
for interesting segments in the audio recording.
A second potential downside of the format of group interviews is that there will be less opportunity
to build rapport with the participants (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2009), because the interviewer’s
attention has to be divided over more than one person. This problem is overcome due to the
interviewer having been employed at the case company in the two years prior to the study and as a
result a sense of familiarity and trust between the interviewer and interviewees is expected.
The third potential downside is that there may be instances where a single respondent will dominate
the discussions, limiting the other respondents in expressing their opinions (Reed & Payton, 1997).
This is addressed by the interviewer through inhibiting the dominant respondent by asking the others
to provide their personal perspectives on items raised by the dominant respondent.
Related to the third downside is the issue that discussions may lead to a false consensus because the
respondent groups all contained a middle manager from the respective project teams (Reed &
Payton, 1997). This fourth downside is caused by the respondents potentially experiencing an
asymmetrical power distribution within the group, which can lead to agreeing to concessions in a
discussion where they would otherwise have reached a different outcome. However, it is expected
that the familiarity and informal communication between middle managers and entrepreneurial
individuals, which has been witnessed across all project teams in the case company through
participative observation, will make the respondents feel comfortable in standing by their own
opinion when their manager favours a different opinion.
The discussion topics are standardised across all interviews, though formulation and order has varied
according to how the interview progressed. The interview protocol is presented in appendix A.1.
The interviews have been recorded using a digital audio recording device. In addition to the audio
files, notes have been taken, which have helped in reconstructing the discussions after the interviews
were conducted.
Each session is planned to last around 45 minutes, in which 14 topics are discussed. Prior to the
sessions, the respondents have received a list of the interview topics by e-mail (see appendix A.2.),
which allowed them to prepare for the interview. This is expected to lead to more complete answers,
while at the same time preventing uncomfortable surprises from coming up during the interviews.
The respondents are informed that the research outcomes may be of limited value to their person
and the company they work for, so there are no indirect effects of declining participation on the way
they are viewed by their peers or their supervisor.
43
The interview questions are open ended and clearly formulated. The use of complex terms or jargon
has been minimised to prevent the misinterpretation of interview questions and the answers
provided. The respondents were encouraged to think out loud or to use storytelling to aid them in
the construction of their answers. Probing will be used to obtain exhaustive answers.
A pilot interview was conducted with a single respondent who has been kept outside of the research
population due to not meeting the tenure requirement. The outcomes of this interview have not
been included in the analysis. The interviewee in the pilot interview is experienced with academic
research and has volunteered to participate in a pilot because she feels a personal connection with
the subject and wanted to assist the researcher in improving the planned interview process. The pilot
interview was used to optimise the research questions and to improve the interview protocol to stay
within the time constraints, while keeping the quality of the answers high. The pilot interview has
also provided an opportunity for the researcher to practice the dual role of moderating the
discussions and taking notes, to test the audio recording device, and to become accustomed to the
flow of the interviews.
The sampling of respondents is a combination of quota sampling and self-selection, based on the
organisational design of the case company. With exception of the supporting staff, each team has
been contacted to delegate three volunteers for the interviews. Nineteen respondents were
approached to participate in this study, of whom eighteen agreed to be interviewed. The final sample
was cut down to sixteen respondents because of scheduling difficulties.
The group sizes are kept small to circumvent the aforementioned cognitive overload from affecting
the interviewer. Furthermore, since the interview topic is relatively complex, a smaller group allows
each respondent more time to express his or her personal opinion.
The sampling occurred from a population of workers with a minimum tenure of 1 year with the case
company. This selection basis ensures that the respondents are familiar with the way the company
operates, how knowledge creation takes place and they have sufficient experience with working in
teams for the expected advantages of using group interviews to take place.
Each set of three respondents included at least one person that is involved in the strategic decision
making at the company. This person usually holds a managing role within the team.
The respondents participated in the interviews outside office hours and have received no
compensation for their efforts. Their motivation can be seen as a personal favour to the researcher.
The sampling basis forms a weakness to this research design. But having motivated respondents who
are likely to be more proficient in articulating their thoughts on an abstract subject than the mean
respondent at the case company, in addition to reaching all relevant teams and departments in the
company, creates the advantage of obtaining data of higher quality than if this selection method was
44
not used. The expected increase in quality of data is expected to outweigh the aforementioned
weaknesses.
The interviews have been conducted using the Dutch language. The outcomes have been translated
to English by the researcher. There is a potential for loss of answer integrity during the translation
process, because the translation is not performed by a professional translation agency. It is expected
that the impact this has on the internal validity will not be of a magnitude to warrant the expenses
for a professional translation.
The interviews have been selectively transcribed, focusing on the important comments and omitting
the banter. The transcriptions were styled to consist out of individual quotes which can be used to
support particular assumptions. These quotes were categorised based on subject to obtain an
overview of the outcomes for each discussion topic. The most interesting and exhaustive quotes are
published in chapter 4. Prior to publishing the quotes, the respondents have had the opportunity to
critique the transcriptions. This leads to awareness of what has been included in the final paper and
prevents inaccuracies as a result of misinterpretations.
The interview outcomes are used to support claims about the applicability of Nonaka’s Hypertext
organisational model. Furthermore, it has served as the basis upon which conclusions are drawn
about the value of said model. The exploratory nature of this study implies that the conclusions hold
limited external validity.
3.3. Operationalization
The constructs to be measured in this study are derived from the third research question “What is
the value and applicability of the model for knowledge creation in knowledge intensive companies?”
This is a double-barrelled question, containing the constructs value and applicability.
Determining the value or applicability of something requires a frame of reference. Without this,
assertions have limited significance. The value of the Hypertext organisation model will therefore be
evaluated in relation to the current method of knowledge creation.
A true measurement of the value and applicability of this model is ideally performed using
quantitative data, stemming from an experimental implementation of the system, while using a
control group. A difference in knowledge creation effectiveness can then be observed in terms of
income generated from new products, or in terms of money saved due to process improvements
over a given period of time. Such a research design would involve segmenting the organisation into
experimental and control groups, which leads to complicated sampling issues and the potential for
45
serious disruptive effects on the organisation’s continuity. To prevent this situation from arising, this
study measures perceptions of value and applicability as substitutes for actual value and applicability.
Because the methodological choices in this study place it loosely in the realism paradigm, the
measurement of perceptions as a substitute for the measurement of the actual constructs is allowed,
if the perceptions “provide a window to a reality beyond these perceptions” (Healy & Perry, 2000). In
other words, because the constructs which are of interest in this study, value and applicability of a
model for organisational knowledge creation, are complex social constructions with fuzzy
boundaries, measuring perceptions of these constructs is a useful and valid method of measurement.
Measuring perceptions of value and performance as a substitute to measuring actual value and
performance is particularly prevalent in customer satisfaction research. Several authors (e.g. Hornik,
1984; Katz, Larson & Larson, 1991; Burton, Sheather & Roberts, 2003) have proven the existence of a
strong correlation between these constructs. Although the field of customer satisfaction research is
arguably different from knowledge management theory, a case can be made for the similarity in
researching the value of an item or idea without actually administering this item or idea. The
correlation between perception and reality forms the second basis which justifies the choice to
measure perceptions of value and applicability in this paper as substitutes to actual value and
applicability.
The interviews are divided into three parts, an introduction with a discussion of the current method
of knowledge creation (interview questions 1-4, appendix A.1.), an in-depth explanation of the
Hypertext model with a discussion about how the Hypertext model relates to the case company
(interview questions 5-8, appendix A.1.), and a discussion of the applicability and value of the
Hypertext model for knowledge creation at the case company (interview questions 9-13, appendix
A.1.).
The discussion of the current method of knowledge creation
The topic is introduced by explaining that commercial organisations can be seen as networks in which
resources are converted into products or services with a higher value than the sum of the resources.
These resources need to be managed for them to be available during the process of adding value.
Resources should be available in sufficient quantities, at the right time. Knowledge is a resource and
knowledge management is the process which ensures that this resource is optimally available to the
organisation. Knowledge creation can be seen as a collection of processes in which the knowledge
resource is created. Correct knowledge management ensures that knowledge creation outcomes are
sufficient to sustain the process of adding value.
Following this introduction, the questions in table 2 are used to ask the respondents to describe how
knowledge is being created at the company, their perception of fit between the method of
46
knowledge creation and the knowledge resource requirements the case company faces, and if they
had suggestions to improve knowledge creation effectiveness at the case company. It must be noted
that due to the semi-structured nature of the interviews, each discussion item is introduced with one
or more of the listed questions. Over the course of the five group interviews, all listed questions are
been asked, but not all questions are asked in every interview.
Table 2: Discussion of the current method of knowledge creation
Items Questioning
Knowledge creation at the case company
How is knowledge created at the case company?
Where do new ideas originate?
How are these new ideas developed?
Who is involved in idea generation?
Who is involved in the development of ideas?
Who decides which ideas to pursue?
How is knowledge being shared?
Can you name examples of methods of knowledge dissemination?
Which method of knowledge sharing is most prevalent?
What do you think is the reason for using this method of knowledge sharing?
Why do you think that knowledge sharing is important, or not important for your work?
How is knowledge being documented?
Is there a centralised knowledge repository?
Which method of knowledge documentation is most prevalent?
What do you think is the reason for using this method of knowledge documentation?
Why do you think that knowledge documentation is important, or not important for your work?
Perception of fit between the current method of knowledge creation and the knowledge resource requirements of the case company
Why do you feel that the practice of knowledge creation fits the knowledge requirements in the organisation?
Can you name situations where you felt that the organisation was unable to deliver the service they would have liked to deliver because of a shortage in innovative ideas?
Can you give examples of situations where there were problems in service delivery because specific knowledge wasn't available to the organisation?
Improving the current method of knowledge creation at the case company
Why do you think the current method of knowledge creation is a suitable method for the requirements the organisation faces, or why do you think it is unsuitable?
What do you think should be changed to improve the current method of knowledge creation?
The discussion about how the Hypertext model relates to the case company
The Hypertext model was introduced using an A-4 printout of figure 1. The model was shown to
construct the organisation along three layers: a knowledge-base layer, a business-system layer and a
project-system layer. The organisation is envisioned to move through these three layers during the
knowledge creation process. Any presumptions of priority or power-preference of the three layers in
figure 1 were eliminated by explaining that the diagonal stacking of the layers was done for layout
purposes.
47
An A-3 printout of the reconstructed model (figure 7) is then presented to show the expanded
interpretation of the three layers. After an explanation of the model and the relations between all
the items in figure 7, in which attempts are made to be as unbiased as possible, the respondents
were given the formal opportunity to ask questions about constructs and their relations. Where
necessary, additional examples are provided to shape a complete understanding of how the model
functions, again with minimum bias. When all respondents in the group claim to understand the
functioning of each construct and the items which lie at the core of the model, they are asked to
discuss the items from the reconstructed Hypertext model (figure 7) using the questions in table 3.
As is the case in the first part of the interviews, not all questions in table 3 are presented during each
interview. Depending on the way the discussions develop and the exhaustiveness of the provided
answers, some of the questions are omitted, though all questions are asked over the course of the
five group interviews.
Table 3: Discussion about how the Hypertext model relates to the case company
Items Questioning
The tacit-explicit continuum Can you name examples of how tacit and explicit knowledge play a role in your work?
Can you name examples of knowledge assets which possess tacit and explicit qualities at the same time?
Comparing tacit and explicit knowledge, which type of knowledge would you say is most important for your work and why?
The four modes of knowledge creation Can you name examples of situations where knowledge was created in each of these four modes?
Why do you expect that each of the four modes are most effective in the business-system layer, or the project-system layer?
How do you perceive the prevalence of each type of knowledge creation in the case company?
Do you have a preference for any of the four modes of knowledge creation and why?
Triggers for the four modes of knowledge creation
Do you recognise each of these five triggers and can you provide a practical example of how these have taken place?
Why do you think each of these triggering conditions are important for knowledge creation?
How does the prevalence of each of these triggers at the case company match the perception of importance that you have placed on these items?
Can you relate each of these triggers to the modes of knowledge creation they are meant to instigate?
Can you relate the creation of a field of interaction to the organisation moving from the business-system layer to the project-system layer and can you provide an example?
Can you relate the documentation and storing of knowledge to the organisation moving from the project-system layer to the knowledge-base layer and can you provide an example?
Can you relate the coordination between team members to the organisation moving from the knowledge-base layer to the business-system layer and can you provide an example?
48
Managing organisational knowledge creation
Why do you think each of these four stimulating factors are important to knowledge creation?
How does each of these four stimulating factors play a role in knowledge creation at the case company?
Do you think any of these four stimulating factors should receive more or less attention at the case company and why?
Middle-up-down management Do you recognise elements of middle-up-down management in practice?
What do you think of ambitious but ambiguous goal setting?
Do you think top-management functions chaos inducing at the case company?
Can you relate to middle managers having a pivotal role in upward and downward communication?
Do you think middle managers reduce chaos in their teams?
Effectiveness of self-organising teams Do you think autonomy, cross fertilisation and self-transcendence are conducive to knowledge creation in self-organising teams?
How do you perceive the levels of autonomy, cross fertilisation and self-transcendence in your team?
Do you think any of these items should receive more or less attention at the case company and why?
Knowledge scaling Can you relate to knowledge scaling as the embodiment of knowledge through a merger between body and soul during continuous exposure to the knowledge subject?
How do you think knowledge is scaled up at the case company?
Centralised knowledge repository What is your position on the storage of newly created knowledge in a central organisational knowledge repository?
What do you think are the shortcomings and advantages of this approach?
How would you improve the usability of a central organisational knowledge repository?
How would you increase the effectiveness of using a central organisational knowledge repository?
Business-system layer as a top-down organisation
Why do you think knowledge creation under typical top-down management can be a success or failure?
Project-system layer as a middle-up-down organisation
Why do you think knowledge creation in project teams can be a success or failure?
Comparing the model to practice (1) Can you name items which you feel uncomfortable with?
Are there items or relations in the model which you believe to have different outcomes than how they were explained?
The discussion about the applicability and value of the model for the case company
The third part of the interviews discusses respondents’ opinions on how the model will be suitable
for knowledge creation at the company and how they think the adoption of this model will improve
their knowledge creation effectiveness. This is discussed using the questions in table 4. Similarly to
the first and second parts of the interview, not all questions listed in table 4 are presented in each
interview. Depending on the way the discussions develop and the exhaustiveness of the provided
49
answers, some of the questions are omitted, though all questions are asked over the course of the
five group interviews.
Table 4: Discussion about the applicability and value of the model for the case company
Items Questioning
Comparing the model to practice (2) How do you expect your involvement in knowledge creation to change if this model is implemented in its original form at the case company?
Do you think this change will be a positive or negative development and why?
Suitability of the model for the case company
Why do you think the model in its original form can be a suitable, or unsuitable, system of knowledge creation for the organisation?
Bringing the model closer to practice How do you think the model should be changed to increase its fit with the organisation’s requirements?
How do you think the Hypertext model should be changed to increase the knowledge creation output?
Perceptions of value and applicability After discussing these topics, how would you judge the model in terms of applicability?
How would you judge the model in terms of value?
50
4. Results of the case study
This chapter presents the findings of the group interviews by highlighting and discussing the
segments which are most relevant to the goal of this study. The chapter is divided into three
sections, based on the three segments of the interviews. The current method of knowledge creation
is discussed in section 4.1., how the model relates to the case company is presented in section 4.2.,
and the applicability and value of the model for the case company is discussed in section 4.3.
The case study outcomes and their implications are assessed in chapter 5.
4.1. The current method of knowledge creation
Knowledge creation at the case company frequently originates at the level of the entrepreneurial
individual, stemming from an intrinsic motivation and deep commitment to technological
developments in the workers’ respective fields.
[RLE - Medior System Administrator] “Knowledge creation in our department occurs naturally.
It comes from a personal interest in technology and enthusiasm about our jobs; a motivation
which shows in how we research technology even outside of office hours. If a particular
technology or software solution can be of value to the way we perform our responsibilities
within the department, we will discuss it in a group. Sometimes this leads to a concept, which
is then presented to our department head. Frequently he will see the merit in these initiatives
and will let us develop it further.
Another example of how knowledge creation at our company is the result of individuals
taking the initiative is how a designer from the Skunkworks team regularly organises an event
called “Area 25”, where employees can come into the office on the weekend to work on
developing their own projects and helping each other out with the issues they are
experiencing. This is all unpaid labour and stems from a personal interest in technology and
progressing knowledge.”
The outcomes of these individual initiatives form the input for team-level discussions, where the
middle manager chooses to either endorse the further development of this knowledge within the
team, or to advice against the pursuit of the technology. [RLE] and other respondents have explained
that discussions about new technology or knowledge is usually held among a small group of team
members, which has a potential downside of missing valuable insights from other team members.
The motivation to develop knowledge and skills into directions adjacent to the current functional
51
specialties requires ambitious team members with high personal commitment to knowledge
creation.
New knowledge is also sourced externally through visiting seminars and gatherings of industry
professionals, and the strategic hiring of staff with skill or expertise with technology which the
company wishes to develop its knowledge in. Several respondents have expressed their support for
external knowledge acquisition as an important way in which new ideas enter the organisation.
[SRA - Senior Software Engineer, Team Coordinator] “We’re talking about the creation of
knowledge, but when applied to our company, I’d rather speak of expanding our knowledge
into new areas. Most new knowledge comes into the organisation through strategic hiring of
staff with experience in particular areas. So we’re either reproducing what we have already
done and know, or we look to fulfil the knowledge requirements through staffing or searching
the internet for solutions to our problems.
An example of knowledge acquisition through hiring is that we recruited a JAVA-developer
who had significant experience with the Scrum methodology. At the time we were not
equipped to apply that technique in our organisation correctly and he just had so much to
teach us. Nowadays most of our teams use this method.”
The above quote from respondent [SRA] is interesting because it hints at an understanding of the
distinction between exploitative and explorative learning (Kang & Snell, 2009) and declares his
doubts about the high level of path dependence he thinks the case company is currently
experiencing.
Team specific knowledge repositories are used to document and store newly developed knowledge.
[JZA – Software Engineer] “Knowledge documentation and storing is performed using wiki’s.
Everything is supposed to be available, but we’re having a hard time finding specific entries.
We know we possess the knowledge, but the tough part is finding out who possesses it,
where it can be found and how it can be recovered.”
According to [JZA] and a large majority of the other respondents, this method of documentation and
storage is not as effective as it should be to adequately address the knowledge requirements the
organisation sometimes faces.
Next to using open wiki’s for documentation, another driver of knowledge dissemination is the
prevalence of informal interpersonal communication and frequent team level meetings. The
52
consensus among the respondents is that these factors are the best way to share knowledge and
create a sense of belonging to a team.
[ESC – Developer] “Team level meetings and departmental (functional) meetings help in
transferring knowledge. We also have weekly meetings with the entire organisation to stay
informed of what’s happening in the organisation and where we’re going. Sometimes the
meetings are used to present new findings, or the development of technology or knowledge
that can be of use to the entire company. The meetings are open to people from all levels of
the organisation, from board members to housekeeping.”
[LLI – Interaction Designer] “The transfer of knowledge through workshops and team-level
meetings is usually the result of private initiative. It is promoted by the company and
somewhat expected, but some colleagues prefer not to spend time on knowledge transfer,
because it takes us away from doing activities that positively affect personal productivity.”
The negative sentiment for knowledge sharing which [LLI] has expressed, has led to an interesting
discussion during the group interview, providing outcomes which have echoed throughout other
interviews.
[FDO – Project Manager] “We should focus more on knowledge dissemination to make sure
that we can respond more flexibly in these situations. Knowledge sharing should receive
greater emphasis by rewarding the activity. In our company the primary performance
indicator is declarability and since knowledge sharing is not a declarable activity, it does not
receive the attention it deserves.”
The value of sharing and storing knowledge is recognised among all respondents. They agree that
there should be a larger emphasis on stimulating knowledge sharing and the embedding of
knowledge into the organisational memory. Reasons for why this behaviour is low in the organisation
can be found in the myopic performance indicator and the sentiment that documenting knowledge is
not a “fun” thing to do.
Avoiding the sharing or documenting of knowledge (the latter is quite prevalent according to the
respondents) can lead to a situation of low knowledge redundancy. This can prove problematic in
situations of unexpected labour mobility or long term absenteeism. Furthermore, if certain
knowledge assets are not made available to the rest of the organisation, they aren’t optimally used
to create value or new knowledge.
To prevent problems from arising due to low redundancy of knowledge, one project manager has
explained that within his team every knowledge asset should be held by at a minimum two members.
53
This should ensure that crucial knowledge remains available to the team, even when someone leaves
the organisation.
The overall innovative capability of the organisation, in both process and product innovation, has
been described by various respondents to be low. There is a risk-avoiding strategy of adopting new
technologies only when they have proven to offer viable market opportunities. This vision can reduce
the employee’s perception of challenge and labour satisfaction.
[GRO – Medior UNIX System Administrator] “We’re not really a company which performs
fundamental innovations. We focus on the tried-and-tested markets and deliver mainly
services that are currently in high demand. I think it’s a bit of a shame that we’re not more
innovative, because it makes our jobs less challenging. But on the other hand this is easier.
You don’t have to invent the wheel every time and you can just do what others have already
done before. This requires less effort and is therefore cheaper to deliver.”
[SRA] “I feel that our knowledge growth stagnates as the company grows ever larger. There is
still growth, but it focuses on what we were already doing, instead of covering new areas.”
4.2. How the Hypertext model relates to the case company
Although the majority of the respondents could name examples of combination and internalisation
taking place in the organisation, many felt the strongest affection towards socialisation.
[JSI – Front End Developer] “I feel most comfortable with the mode of socialisation. I’ve
learned my trade by watching others and copying them. I also use internet sources to find
solutions for practical problems I face in my work. Then I just adapt and implement these
solutions. This makes me more capable in performing my tasks.”
[JKR – Developer] “I am a great proponent of the mode of socialisation. For example, by
putting a front-end developer with low experience together with one with high experience,
this is the best way for them to learn on-the-job.”
The preference for socialisation may stem from an apparent preference for an organic organisational
structure with an emphasis on multifunctional project teams.
The perception of creative chaos is found to be a powerful facilitator of knowledge creation at the
case company.
54
[JSI] “Before I joined this organisation I worked at a company with a typical top-down
approach. There were very strict directives from upper management and we had little
discretionary freedom in performing our tasks. Here however, I experience much more
freedom when doing my job. I get the feeling that my insights are truly valued, but this also
makes me a little uncertain about what is expected of me. I find that this uncertainty brings
out the best in me; it enables me to become more creative and come up with more new
ideas.”
Freedom and uncertainty, as well as experiencing pressure from working under strict time
restrictions and being exposed to high expectations about the service level, were supported by the
respondents to be conducive to knowledge creation. Concluding from the reactions, it can be said
that the element of creative chaos is in place at the case company.
When discussing love, trust, care and commitment there were some frivolities about using love as a
facilitator for knowledge creation. One respondent went as far as to say that the organisation should
be a professional environment and not “degrade into a hippie commune”. A case can be made for
removing the word love from this construct, because it is detached from how westerners would
describe a professional relationship at the workplace.
When focusing on trust, care and commitment, it became easier to relate this construct to how it can
promote knowledge sharing within the organisation.
[RCO – Developer] “I think the most important factor for knowledge sharing is the
atmosphere in which the knowledge is being shared. A friendly culture and atmosphere really
helps.
In the past six months I have done a number of projects with a developer from another team.
Looking back on this period I realise that when you trust each other, become accustomed to
working together and committed to delivering a high quality product as a duo, most
knowledge sharing occurs naturally. If I for example know that I won’t be in tomorrow and
know what he will be working on, then I will just send him a message of what I have done
today, which issues I have encountered, how I have solved them and where he can continue
tomorrow. If an interpersonal bond was absent, I probably wouldn’t have written this
message and just have packed up my stuff at 17:00h.”
[SRA] “Interpersonal trust and being able to objectively assess different viewpoints is
important to progress your own knowledge. Being able to change your own approach or step
outside of your comfort zone is the most important thing when trying to work together to
achieve a common goal. Unfortunately I can name a number of colleagues who don’t really fit
55
this mould, which leads to a reliance on old habits. Overall I’d say the interpersonal trust and
commitment to the organisational goals is high. You can tell it is by looking at how we work
and communicate with each other.”
An example of how cross fertilisation plays a role in project teams at the case company is provided by
a respondent who has joined a project team for the duration of a particular project.
[GRO] “I am a member of the “Hosting & IT Support” department, but recently my
workstation has been relocated to join the PHP/Typo3 team. Comparing working in this
multifunctional team to the homogeneous composition of my usual surroundings, I can feel
the difference in knowledge creation. My colleagues in the PHP/Typo3 team have much more
varied backgrounds in the type of education they have had and the different projects they
have worked on. I think that this characteristic allows an inflow of perspectives which would
not have taken place if the team lacked this type of functional diversity.”
Another similarity between the model and the case company was discovered when discussing the
practice of middle-up-down management.
[JWA – Senior Project Manager] “We have a restaurant-style menu of services we offer and
areas we are experienced in. This document is used as an example to show potential clients
what we can do for them. The items on this list also serve as a guideline for what we wish to
excel in and develop our knowledge further.
The menu is constructed by the upper management and several senior members from middle
management, such as me. There were a hand full of meetings with employees from varied
layers of the organisation where they had the opportunity to express their wishes regarding
this menu, but I would say the document is primarily written by the top of the organisational
hierarchy.”
This example describes how the overall direction is determined by upper management. The
restaurant-style menu functions as a broad guideline for how the case company’s services
materialise. Middle management holds a crucial role in the communication of these general
directions to the knowledge developing lower end of the organisation. When asked if the middle
managers can be considered to be an essential hub in the communication paths, the respondents
uniformly agreed that their managers formed the main channel through which they communicated
their ideas upwards and received guidance from the organisational top.
The perception of value of using a middle-up-down management approach at the case company was
highlighted by several respondents.
56
[RCO] “I think it’s important for the self-organising teams to have someone in the function of
a controller. I for example, tend to use freedom to come up with novel ideas, but I frequently
stray from the path and end up with solutions to problems that are quite distant from what
may be viewed as productive or value-added. If there is someone that can keep me on track,
my time would have been better spent. But this person shouldn’t dominate the process,
because that would inhibit the creative processes. But this type of reflection can certainly help
in adjusting the knowledge creation process to keep its value high.”
In section 4.1. there is mention of how wiki’s, informal interpersonal communication and team,
department, and organisation level meetings are used to document, store and share knowledge.
Another driver of knowledge dissemination is the prevalence of informal interpersonal
communication and frequent team level meetings. The consensus among the respondents is that
these factors are the best way to share knowledge and create a sense of belonging to a team, but
these actions are not performed as frequently or concisely as some people would prefer it to be. This
perception is further supported by the following statement:
[GRO] “A colleague of mine has some particular knowledge which is very valuable for our
department. We continuously ask him to share his knowledge, but he keeps avoiding the
topic. He may think it’s too much of a hassle to share his ideas, if he can just do it himself
anyway. He usually responds by saying that one can just look it up on the internet. The
commitment to share knowledge apparently isn’t equal among all employees. In particular
when it’s in the form of a presentation; something he doesn’t like to do. On the other hand, if
I ask him for a personal favour to help me with this item, I know he’ll be there to lend a hand.”
Apart from the effect it has on the creation of knowledge redundancy and the sharing of knowledge,
documentation and storing of newly created knowledge forms a trigger for the combination mode in
the knowledge creation spiral, and it moves the organisation out of the project-system layer.
Without application of this trigger it is expected that the organisation can’t make this shift, which
means that the spiral of knowledge creation and the accompanying structural cycle in the Hypertext
organisation don’t come to fruition at the case company.
After introducing the topic of using the triggers for the knowledge creation modes as actuators for
the switch between being self-organising and experiencing top-down management, the respondents
recognised a subtle implementation of the triggers creation of a field of interaction and coordination
between team members. The implementation of these triggers was operationalized by the
respondents as the formation of self-organising teams, and situations where project managers
exerted pressure to reduce chaos in their teams and come to clear definitions of responsibilities.
57
They identified this type of pressure as a mechanism which is likely to take place during situations of
crisis, or nearing deadlines. The respondents have also expressed that a switch to the business-
system layer very rarely takes place at the case company, estimating that the organisation is best
compared to the project-system layer for about 90% of the time.
By not moving out of the project-system layer, it is expected that the benefits of a top-down
management philosophy on combination and internalisation will not take place. The triggering
mechanism for internalisation is the experimentation with newly created knowledge.
Experimentation has been claimed by some respondents to be something they would like to see
more formal support for from higher management.
[JWA] “There is not enough room in our organisation to experiment with newly created
knowledge. We’re not providing the freedom for our people to do so. It would be beneficial if
we focus more on facilitating experimentation in our teams, as well as documentation.
By having a larger emphasis on these aspects, I think my team will fit into the Hypertext cycle.
By standardising some of our responsibilities and the way we do things in our team, I hope we
will create more time to venture into new areas and to experiment with newly created
knowledge.”
With low frequency of documentation and experimentation, the modes of combination and
internalisation are expected to play only a small role in the knowledge creation process at the case
company.
The composition of the knowledge creation spiral proved to be an interesting topic for discussion.
Several questions were raised about the order in which the modes are to take place and the potential
for overlap between the individual modes.
[JZA] “The knowledge creation spiral doesn’t take place in this order in my case. I think the
modes of internalisation and socialisation have overlap. For example, if someone has read
something and learned from this, he will discuss this with a colleague. From this discussion,
questions arise from the tacit knowledge they hold, which leads to new knowledge creation.
Perhaps it’s a form of combination. I think that these questions originate at the subconscious
level.”
[RLE] “The model as a whole appears to be very plausible and logically constructed. But I think
there are some elements in the model that may be too deterministic to be translated into
practice. The knowledge creation spiral for example, I think you can’t really speak of four
separate modes of knowledge creation. There are grey-areas in between the four modes, in
58
which I think much of the knowledge creation can also take place. If the tacit/explicit
distinction is seen as a continuum, then this devalues the four modes of knowledge creation
as discrete constructs.
For example, if I’m working with a server and I’m experiencing a problem, I may use the
documentation we have for this particular type of technology, while I also use my experience
with this technology to overcome the issue. Solving the problem is then an application of
explicit and tacit knowledge simultaneously. The new knowledge I created while addressing
the issue with this server is the result of an overlapping mode of knowledge creation which
lies between the modes of internalisation and socialisation.”
The example [RLE] has provided to support his opinion is not sufficient to claim that there must be an
overlap between the four modes of knowledge creation, because he describes how he solves a
problem using a combination of tacit and explicit knowledge sources, rather than creating knowledge
in a combination of two modes. But what can be drawn from the above two quotes is that some
respondents believe that the four modes of knowledge creation should not be seen as discrete
constructs, but rather as being part of a continuum, similar to how Nonaka has explained the tacit-
explicit continuum (Nonaka, von Krogh and Voelpel, 2006; Nonaka & von Krogh, 2009). This leads to
the conclusion that knowledge creation in practice does not take place in four separate modes as is
conceptualised (Nonaka, 1991; Nonaka, 1994), but in instances which have characteristics of more
than one knowledge creation mode. This assertion will be returned to in subsection 6.2.1.
4.3. Applicability and value of the model for the case company
A general assessment of fit between the method of knowledge creation and the knowledge
requirements the organisation faces is provided by Team Coordinator [SRA]:
[SRA] “Our knowledge creation method does not fit our knowledge requirements because we
have become too slow to adapt to changes. We just can’t flexibly adapt to the variability in
knowledge demands we are facing. The price of our services decreases as our knowledge level
increases. With a low or highly specific knowledge base, we may become unable to compete
in this highly variable market.”
Other interview outcomes about the perceived value and applicability of the model for the case
company referred to much of what has been presented in sections 4.1. and 4.2., and can be
summarised as a positive sentiment. An expectancy of high applicability and value is caused by the
wish to provide the knowledge creation process with more structure through better documentation
59
and storing of knowledge, improving knowledge dissemination and finding a better balance in how
the four modes of knowledge take place at the case company.
This being said, some respondents judge the Hypertext model in its current form as being too general
to be of real value to the case company. They believe that the model is constructed to be as widely
applicable as possible and should be brought closer to practice to be of real value to the case
company.
After the interviews were conducted, several respondents have expressed that they experienced the
discussions as an eye-opener, because through participating in this study they have gained some
awareness of what goes on in knowledge creation. Now that they have gained this awareness, they
intend to rely less on the current pragmatic approach to knowledge creation and will look into
practices such as the Hypertext model.
[JWA] “I think there is considerable value in this model. It can be brought into practice by
subtly working the triggers for the four modes of knowledge creation. I also think that this
interview has made the three of us more aware of what knowledge creation is and how we
can improve the practice of knowledge creation in our team. I can conclude that we need to
spend more time in the documentation phase and we need to allow more experimentation
with existing and newly created knowledge. Furthermore, I would like to receive a copy of this
poster, so I can use it to create awareness of the knowledge creation process among my
team.”
Concluding chapter 4, the case company’s method of knowledge creation can be summarised as a
pragmatic approach to solving problems, supported by an enthusiastic workforce which is highly
motivated and committed to developing their knowledge, even outside of office hours. Next to the
internal development of knowledge, the organisation relies on external sourcing through visiting
seminars and workshops, and selective hiring.
The organisation uses wiki’s to document and store knowledge. Other forms of knowledge sharing
include informal interpersonal communication and frequent team level meetings. There is a negative
sentiment towards knowledge sharing, and in particular documenting and storing of newly created
knowledge, which may be caused by myopic performance indicators and not experiencing labour
satisfaction in the act of documenting newly created knowledge.
The negative sentiment towards knowledge sharing and documentation leads to low knowledge
redundancy. This can cause problems of not being able to use knowledge assets in situations of
unexpected labour mobility or long term absenteeism. A protection against this vulnerability has
been found in enforcing a policy of having a minimum of two team members in possession of every
60
crucial knowledge asset.
The organisation is perceived to have become too large and sluggish to be able to flexibly adapt to
changes in the market and technology. This factor can have serious detrimental effects for the
organisation’s potential in the fast moving internet sector.
Finally, it was brought up by several respondents that the innovative capability of the organisation is
purposefully kept low, as a risk-avoidance strategy. This policy is met with resistance by several
respondents, who have expressed that the late adoption of new technologies makes their jobs less
challenging. A reliance on developing knowledge which the organisation already possesses, path
dependence, has been highlighted as a factor which may lead to stagnation in knowledge growth.
61
5. Assessing the case study outcomes
Following the results of the case study in chapter 4, this chapter presents an analysis of the outcomes
in terms of the differences between the case company and the Hypertext model (section 5.1.), the
similarities (section 5.2.) and an assessment of the model’s value and applicability, based on the
interview outcomes (section 5.3). The purpose of this chapter is to come to a clear basis upon which
to formulate suggestions to improve the model and answer the four research questions in chapter 6.
5.1. Differences between the case company and the Hypertext model
The differences between the Hypertext model and the case company can be explained as a
combination of factors which prevent the knowledge creation process at the case company to take
place in accordance to how Nonaka (1994) has modelled it.
Documentation has been described by respondents as an essential element of knowledge sharing
which regrettably receives little attention in practice due to a myopic performance indicator, poor
project planning and a general dislike of this type of labour at various levels of the organisation. The
employer appears unable to change this negative attitude, despite many respondents claiming to
value proper documentation and storage of newly created knowledge. Low documentation adversely
affects the process of combination and inhibits the organisation in moving from the project-system
layer through the knowledge-base layer into the business-system layer.
Coordination between team members through clearly defining responsibilities among team members
in an effort to reduce chaos in situations of crisis, is recognised by a number of respondents, while
others claim that this does not play a significant role in their respective teams. Low coordination also
adversely affects the process of combination and inhibits the organisation in moving into the
business-system layer.
Because personal initiative in knowledge creation is held in high regard, experimentation with new
knowledge is mentioned to be an aspect the company wants to focus more on. One project manager
has stated that he intends to restructure his team’s development process in order to better facilitate
the processes of documentation and experimentation. But this claim may have been triggered by
discussing the Hypertext model, which reduces the validity of this statement. Facilitating more
experimentation will positively affect the internalisation mode of knowledge creation.
With low levels of documentation, coordination and the current perception of how experimentation
takes place in the organisation, it is expected that knowledge creation at the case company centres
on socialisation and externalisation, while residing primarily in the project-system layer. Whether this
assumption holds true will be determined in section 5.2., in which the similarities between the case
62
company’s knowledge creation practice and the Hypertext model will be discussed.
A last point of interest in the discussion of differences between the case company and the model is
separate from the assertion that knowledge creation at the case company takes place in just two of
the four modes. Two respondents have expressed their criticism towards conceptualising knowledge
creation as a system in which four discrete processes take place. This criticism was declared in
separate interviews and was uncontroversial among the other respondents in these interviews. Both
respondents believe that there is an overlap between internalisation and socialisation, supporting
this claim with a practical example of how knowledge can be created in a situation which combines
elements from internalisation and socialisation. One respondent linked the assertion of overlap
between these modes to the existence of a spectrum between the constructs tacit and explicit
knowledge. Nonaka’s (2006) acceptance of Ambrosini and Bowman’s (2001) suggestion to move
away from classifying these two types of knowledge as discrete constructs, in favour of seeing them
take shape along a continuum, can be a reason to remodel the knowledge creation spiral to cover the
“grey areas” between each mode.
5.2. Similarities between the case company and the Hypertext model
The similarities between the Hypertext model and the case company can be summed up as the
reliance on entrepreneurial individuals, existence of creative chaos, generally high love, trust, care
and commitment, partial support for cross fertilisation, middle-up-down management, reliance on
socialisation, and a high resemblance with the project-system layer.
The case company exhibits high reliance on entrepreneurial individuals and the efforts these
individuals put into expanding their knowledge. The overall perception is that knowledge creation
primarily takes place at the personal level and these individual initiatives are held in high regard.
There is consensus about the positive effect of experiencing creative chaos on the knowledge
creation outcomes. The perception of discretionary freedom in performing tasks and the occasional
pressure to meet deadlines are expressed to be conducive to creating new knowledge.
Love, trust, care and commitment is seen as an important and prevalent prerequisite for the sharing
of knowledge. Some employees are credited to exhibit low interpersonal trust, which leads to low
knowledge sharing, but these employees form a minority in the organisation.
The project teams show high cross fertilisation, while the departments “Maintenance & Support” and
“Hosting & IT Support” are relatively homogeneous. Knowledge creation efforts appear to be more
effective in the heterogeneous project teams, which is in line with what is expected according to the
Hypertext model.
63
The case company is managed through middle-up-down management. The upper management is
responsible for the general direction of the company, which the rest of the company uses to shape
the services they offer. Entrepreneurial individuals have considerable power in strategic decision
making based on the influence they have exerted on upper management to change particular
strategic decisions.
The position of middle managers in self-organising teams is seen as a valuable addition, because of
the controlling influence they can have on knowledge creation efforts. The middle managers are also
credited with moving the project teams from the project-system layer into the business-system layer
by switching from a supporting role to a more strict type of leadership and being the primary
communication channel through which new knowledge and ideas move up and down the
organisation.
From the four modes of knowledge creation there is a preference for socialisation, although
examples of all four modes of knowledge creation were provided. Reliance on socialisation over
combination and internalisation may have been caused by the company’s bias towards using self-
organising teams. These teams occasionally switch from the project-system layer to the business-
system layer in situations of crisis, but the respondents think that the organisation exhibits the
highest resemblance with the project-system layer. Some respondents estimated that their teams or
departments are in the project-system layer for more than 90% of the time.
5.3. Value and applicability for the case company
It is useful to realise that when making predictions about the potential value of a model for a
practical scenario, this expression is inherently related to the perception of applicability of this model
in this specific situation. If the model is perceived to be difficult to implement, it will be attributed
with lower value for the organisation than if it were perceived to be easy to implement.
There is one caveat to implementing this model at the case company: with few exceptions, changes
at the case company are met with high resistance. The case company uses a democratic way of
decision making, where all employees can offer their opinions. In addition, the majority of the
employees at the case company have little labour experience outside of this company and are
therefore unaware of how changes can affect the organisation and the way they experience their
work. In general, the employees are unwilling to take risks or step outside of their comfort zone. This
means that if the case company wants to implement the Hypertext model to improve their
knowledge creation effectiveness, it will have to be very delicate in handling and overcoming the
resistance to change.
64
Based on the comments received during the interviews, the applicability of the Hypertext model is
relatively high. After the interviews several respondents have expressed that they will immediately
take elements of the model into practice to improve the knowledge creation effectiveness in their
teams. One of these respondents is involved in strategic decision making at the case company and he
has asked about the possibility to present the Hypertext model to a larger audience within the
company, to increase awareness about knowledge creation and knowledge management. He and
others believe that the model can be put into practice with relative ease if the triggers for the four
modes of knowledge creation are subtly applied to the organisation, to shape the knowledge
creation efforts along the spiral and as a result have the organisation switch through the layers of the
Hypertext organisation.
As has been described over the course of this chapter and highlighted in section 5.1., there are some
discrepancies between the practical situation and the way knowledge creation is modelled by
Nonaka. The applicability of the Hypertext model will benefit from using the interview outcomes to
bring the model closer to practice, while retaining much of its universality. Subsection 6.2.1. will
elaborate on how to achieve this.
The model is considered by one respondent to be valuable for knowledge creation at the case
company because it goes beyond the age-old solution of implementing a Knowledge Management
System as a panacea for knowledge management related issues. Other respondents have attributed
value to the model based on the awareness it creates about the knowledge creation process. The
value of the model for the case company is manifested in the incentive it provides to increase
knowledge sharing and documentation. Using the model can help the case company to increase the
effectiveness of knowledge creation through combination and internalisation, which allows the
company to create knowledge in all four modes of the knowledge creation spiral. Many aspects of
the Hypertext model are already in place, but the real benefits are gained by focusing on these last
elements.
A final comment on the value and applicability of the model for knowledge creation at the case
company is that one respondent raised the argument that if the model was supported by a business
case with an assessment of the projected costs of implementation and expected returns, an
implementation decision will become easier to make and thusly further enhance the value for
practical situations.
65
6. Conclusion and discussion
This thesis has started with the notion that knowledge creation models frequently suffer from a
narrow scope or a too broad approach, leading to limitations in generalisation, methodological
shortcomings, lack of concise explanation of constructs, difficult translation of the models to practice
and overall uncertainty about value and applicability. Nonaka’s Hypertext model was chosen to be
brought closer to practice and to draw conclusions about its value and applicability. The model, as
Nonaka has presented it in his 1994 article, was presented in section 2.1. and figure 1. After an
extensive literature review a more complete interpretation of Nonaka’s intentions has led to the
reconstructed Hypertext model in figure 7. The reconstructed model was used in a case study which
has led to interesting expressions of how the model formed an accurate representation of knowledge
creation in a knowledge intensive company and perceptions of value and applicability.
There are two areas where conclusions can be drawn. Firstly, a conclusion can be drawn about the
applicability and value of the model for knowledge creation in practice. This assessment is presented
in section 6.1. by answering the four research questions.
Secondly, the case study has provided sufficient data to propose changing the Hypertext model to
bring it closer to practice and to suggest changes to the way the case company has structured its
knowledge creation activities. These items are discussed in section 6.2. and a visualisation of an
improved Hypertext model in figure 11.
This chapter end with an analysis of this study’s contributions and limitations in sections 6.3. and 6.4.
respectively.
6.1. Research question outcomes
6.1.1. The main elements of the model and its contribution to knowledge creation
As has been presented earlier, the main elements of Nonaka’s Hypertext organisation model are (1)
the three-layered organisation design with which the context in which knowledge is created is
adapted to support the type of knowledge creation activities that take place, (2) the combination of
top-down and bottom-up management’s knowledge creation characteristics in middle-up-down
management, and (3) the knowledge creation spiral that is conceptualised as a sequence of phases in
which knowledge shifts from tacit to explicit and back, while gaining in magnitude and momentum
with every phase.
The model contributes to knowledge creation theory by conceptualising knowledge creation to take
place in the four modes socialisation, externalisation, combination and internalisation. In
66
socialisation tacit knowledge is created in a process of observation, imitation and practice. In
externalisation explicit knowledge is created by articulating tacit knowledge using metaphors and
analogies. Combination is the creation of explicit knowledge by combining various knowledge assets
into a new asset. Internalisation is the creation of tacit knowledge by absorbing explicit knowledge to
the extent that it becomes taken for granted by the individual and it is used to broaden, extend, and
reframe the individual’s own tacit knowledge.
The second contribution to knowledge management theory is achieved by combining the effects top-
down and bottom-up management have on knowledge creation in the hybrid middle-up-down
management. In middle-up-down management the top management is responsible for setting out a
broad direction for the organisation and formulating ambitious, but ambiguous goals. Middle
management is tasked with communicating these visions and directives downwards where they are
executed by entrepreneurial individuals. The middle managers are then responsible for
communicating the findings of the lower end of the organisation upwards and as such form an
essential communication hub in the organisation. Middle-up-down management proposes the use of
self-organising teams which operate in a situation of creative chaos to become less path dependent
and increase the innovative capacity of the organisation.
The third contribution to knowledge management theory is the way knowledge creation enhancing
conditions are included in the model. These conditions include creative chaos, redundancy of
information, requisite variety, and love, trust, care and commitment. Together these conditions
create a context which is conducive to knowledge creation effectiveness.
The fourth contribution to knowledge management theory is the solution Nonaka (1991) provides to
the problem of converting tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge. By using delicate metaphors and
analogies, seemingly unarticulable knowledge can be transferred. As has been discussed in
subsection 2.2.2., this method has received some criticism. Ambrosini and Bowman (2001) propose
that the use of storytelling and cognitive mapping are more suitable ways of converting tacit
knowledge into explicit knowledge.
6.1.2. Operationalizing and implementing the model in practice
The model can be brought into practice by emphasising knowledge scaling through gaining
experience with newly created knowledge and rationally reflecting on improving processes and
designs. The company should also create an environment with requisite variety, redundancy of
information, creative chaos and high love, trust, care and commitment to improve knowledge
creation effectiveness.
By being aware of the knowledge requirements the company faces, they can manage their
67
knowledge creation activities to match these requirements. The company should promote the
sharing of tacit knowledge through the creation of fields of interaction or self-organising teams. The
conversion of tacit to explicit knowledge can be stimulated by facilitating dialogue, the sharing of
explicit knowledge by endorsing the documentation of existing knowledge and coordination between
team members, and the conversion of explicit to tacit knowledge by allowing experimentation with
newly created knowledge. These triggers also move the organisation through the three layers of the
Hypertext organisation. The creation of a field of interaction can be seen as a move from the
business-system layer to the project-system layer, documentation of knowledge forms the move
from the project-system layer to the knowledge-base layer and coordination between team
members returns the organisation from the knowledge-base layer to the business-system layer.
6.1.3. Value and applicability for knowledge intensive companies
The Hypertext model is attributed to be valuable for knowledge intensive companies because it goes
beyond the common solution of implementing a Knowledge Management System, it creates
awareness about the knowledge creation process and emphasises the sharing and documentation of
knowledge. If the case company’s method of knowledge creation is an accurate representation of
knowledge creation in knowledge intensive companies, the model is valuable because it helps to
increase the effectiveness of knowledge creation through combination and internalisation. This
allows the company to create knowledge in all four modes of the knowledge creation spiral.
The applicability is perceived to be high by the respondents because they have expressed that they
will immediately take elements of the model into practice to improve the knowledge creation
effectiveness in their teams. Following the interviews one respondent has requested that a workshop
is set up to present the Hypertext model to a larger audience within the company, to increase
awareness about knowledge creation and knowledge management. The interviews have resulted in
the conclusion that the model can be used by subtly applying the triggers for the four modes of
knowledge creation. This shapes the knowledge creation efforts along the spiral and has the
company shift through the layers of the Hypertext organisation.
The value and applicability of the model for knowledge intensive companies is perceived to increase
if it was supported by a business case with an assessment of the projected costs of implementation
and expected returns, to make it easier for strategic management to decide on whether to adopt this
method or not. Furthermore, the model’s value and applicability will benefit from addressing the
discrepancies which have been found between the model and the way knowledge creation is
expressed to take place in practice (see 6.2.1.).
68
6.1.4. Conclusions regarding the applicability of the model
Whereas the value and applicability of the model for knowledge intensive companies is perceived to
be high, there are comments to be made about several theoretical aspects of the model. Nonaka’s
(1991, 1994) knowledge typology suffers from insufficient explanation of how tacit knowledge differs
from explicit knowledge. This shortcoming becomes apparent when comparing Nonaka’s typology
with those of other authors, such as Kogut and Zander (1992), Ambrosini and Bowman (2001), Coff,
Coff and Eastvold (2006), and Turner and Makhija (2006). The adoption of the concept of a tacit-
explicit continuum (Nonaka, von Krogh and Voelpel, 2006; Nonaka & von Krogh, 2009) has improved
Nonaka’s knowledge typology, but the constructs remain insufficiently explained.
The way Nonaka has presented the four modes of knowledge creation is plagued by the same
shortcoming of insufficient explanation. The socialisation construct for example, is supported by poor
examples. Nonaka never clearly explains how tacit knowledge is converted into explicit knowledge in
externalisation and questions have been raised about the message integrity if tacit knowledge is
packaged in a metaphor which is subsequently converted into an analogy. While Nonaka (1991, p.
99) admits to providing a poor example when explaining the combination construct, he does not
provide a suitable alternative. Finally, the internalisation construct is explained using a convoluted
example which shrouded the explaining elements in unnecessary details. Without regard to the way
Nonaka (1991, 1994) has presented the four modes of knowledge creation, the validity of these
constructs has been proven in several instances of empirical testing, with one notable remark: no
conclusive evidence has been found for the use of dialogue and metaphor in externalisation.
The knowledge creation spiral builds on the four modes of knowledge creation and is by extension
affected by the above theoretical shortcomings. Apart from this, there are several comments to be
made about how Nonaka (1994) has presented the knowledge creation spiral. The first comment is
that Nonaka mentions that a focus on pure combination or socialisation can prove problematic, but
doesn't explain the effects of focusing on pure internalisation or externalisation. The causal relations
between the proposed triggering mechanisms and the resulting modes of knowledge creation are
also not elaborated on, or proven through empirical testing. It can even be said that the proposed
triggering mechanisms are an operationalization of the constructs they are conceptualised to
actuate. A final shortcoming in the knowledge creation spiral is that the order in which the modes
are to take place is taken for granted as a sequence with a set order. Choi and Lee’s findings (2002)
hint at a potentially different order of the modes in the knowledge creation spiral. It may therefore
prove beneficial to explore alternative orders, or abandoning the sequential nature of the spiral in
favour of a parallel interpretation.
Similarly to how the relation between the triggers and the modes of knowledge creation remains to
be empirically proven, the proposed enhancing conditions to the effectiveness of self-organising
69
teams are not supported by empirical data. The suggested relations may even be subject to a
moderating effect of Japanese culture, based on how Nonaka, Toyama and Konno (2000) have
conceptually developed the knowledge creation field construct into a more detailed understanding
of the social aspects of knowledge development and relabelled the construct as Ba.
In the way Nonaka (1988b) has presented middle-up-down management as a hybrid management
form he claims that this type of management promotes parallel knowledge creation. When using this
concept in the Hypertext model (1994), he shies away from using this aspect. It is unclear why this
choice is made or how the parallel processes from middle-up-down is envisioned to take place in the
Hypertext organisation. Middle-up-down management also suffers from a lack of empirical
grounding. The original publication (Nonaka, 1988b) presents it in a purely conceptual fashion,
lacking empirical support or references to practice.
Nonaka’s conceptualisation (1994) of knowledge creation enhancing conditions mentions
redundancy of information as being helpful in speeding up concept creation by promoting the sharing
of tacit knowledge and helping organisational members understand their role in the organisation.
Redundancy of information can be created by the conscious overlapping of company information,
business activities, and management responsibilities, which is suggested six years after publication to
possibly lead to information overload (Nonaka, Toyama & Konno, 2000). It is unclear to which extent
redundancy of information should be created for it to remain beneficial for knowledge creation,
before it becomes detrimental.
The final item in the Hypertext model to receive criticism in this paper is Nonaka’s conceptualisation
of knowledge scaling. An argument is made against the scaling of tacit knowledge because it can lead
to the deterioration of competitive advantages. Furthermore, the way Nonaka (1994) has presented
knowledge scaling is to a great extent grounded in traditional Japanese philosophy and it is unclear
to which extent it remains applicable to western management.
It can be concluded that the theoretical shortcomings to the Hypertext model are quite extensive.
During the interviews a comment was made that the model is highly abstract and appears to be
applicable to any organisation. The universality of the model reduces the immediate practical
applicability, but enhances the model’s general appeal because it can be modified to fit any
organisation. The theoretical shortcomings and the model’s distance from practice negatively affect
the applicability of the Hypertext model. By addressing the theoretical issues from and bringing the
model closer to practice, the scientific and practical value of the model will be enhanced. The
following section will explain how the model can be amended to more closely resemble knowledge
creation in knowledge intensive companies.
70
6.2. Increasing the model’s fit with the practical setting
This section will attempt to increase the model’s fit with the practical setting. Increasing the fit will
be done by firstly bringing the model closer to practice, based on the feedback provided during the
group-interviews. Secondly, suggestions will be provided for improving the practice of knowledge
creation at the case company, based on the Hypertext model and the accompanying theoretical
elaboration provided in the second chapter of this paper.
6.2.1. Amending the model to bring it closer to practice
Improving the Hypertext model to bring it closer to practice requires that room is created to make
the model more adjustable for specific organisational settings. Nine out of sixteen respondents have
argued that the model is highly abstract and conceptual, which makes it difficult to compare to the
case company. The model is intended as a simplified representation of how an ideal type of
knowledge creating organisation can be shaped. In its current form the model can be applied to any
organisation, which has the advantage of increasing the model’s value in the light of knowledge
management theory development. A downside of the universality of the model is that it does not
cater to the specific demands of organisations looking to improve their knowledge creation activities.
With respect to both of these arguments, the suggested amendments in this subsection are aimed at
improving the model’s practical value for knowledge intensive companies.
As has been discussed in section 5.1., accepting the existence of a continuum between tacit and
explicit knowledge leads to the problem that the four modes of knowledge creation are still based on
the discrete constructs of tacit and explicit knowledge. This means that the current modelling of the
knowledge creation spiral does not account for the “grey-areas” in between the modes. To overcome
this issue, the first amendment to the Hypertext model is to
change the knowledge creation concept from the matrix of
four discrete modes (figure 4) into a circle (figure 9) which
allows overlap between the modes. This type of visualisation
makes it possible to place combined types of knowledge
creation in the model.
The second proposed change to the Hypertext model has
been hinted at in subsection 2.2.3. and in figure 5 and
involves the acceptance of knowledge creation to take place
simultaneously in several modes. Moving away from
Figure 9: Knowledge creation spiral with overlapping modes
71
describing knowledge creation to follow a specified order was suggested by four respondents as a
more accurate representation of how knowledge creation takes place in practice. But this change to
the knowledge creation spiral undermines the idea of adapting the organisational structure to
stimulate the effectiveness of the knowledge creation modes. The triggers for each of the modes in
the knowledge creation spiral are also responsible for moving the organisation through the three
layers of the Hypertext model. By conceptualising the knowledge creation process as a more chaotic
process in which modes can take place simultaneously, the organisation switches through the
Hypertext layers erratically. This behaviour has the potential to negatively affect the knowledge
creation efficiency. The conceptualisation of the knowledge creation spiral should therefore be in
terms of a circle with implied grey-areas, but also be nuanced to explain that several modes can take
place simultaneously and that the order with which knowledge moves through these modes should
be seen as a guideline, rather than an instruction.
Another point which was raised during the interviews was that the current representation of the
Hypertext model makes a clear distinction between the business-system layer and the project-
system layer, which is perceived to be unrepresentative of how these architectures exist in practice.
The choice to make this distinction is based on the vastly different composition of these layers. This
was commented on because several respondents believed that the model would be closer to practice
if there would be some form of overlap between these layers, because neither pure self-organising
teams, nor bureaucratic hierarchies exist in practice without exhibiting some characteristics of the
opposing structure. The perceived positive influence of middle managers on the functioning of self-
organising teams through seeing the middle manager in the role of a controller illustrates how these
teams still need someone in a leader role to increase the team’s efficiency. The third proposed
change is therefore to place the constructs business-system layer and project-system layer on the
opposing ends of a continuum to accommodate for the various gradations in between these
constructs. Depending on the dominant mode of knowledge creation at the time, the organisation’s
structural characteristics will sway on this continuum (figure 10) from favouring an organisational
hierarchy to exhibiting features of self-organising teams. In figure 10 this continuum is purposefully
coloured similarly to the gradient in figure 9 to represent the relation between these items of the
amended model. If a type of knowledge creation is situated towards the blue end of figure 9, by
possessing characteristics of combination and internalisation, the effectiveness of this type of
knowledge creation will be improved if the organisation exhibits structural properties which lie at the
same hue in the spectrum between the project-system layer and the business-system layer of figure
10.
The proposed reconceptualisation of the Hypertext organisation in figure 10 does not contain a
72
representation of the knowledge-base layer,
because of its functional dissimilarity with the
project-system layer and the business-system layer.
The latter two layers are intended to describe a type
of organisational structure, while the knowledge-
base layer represents a knowledge repository. It is
plausible that in Nonaka’s (1994) visualisation of the
Hypertext organisation (figure 1) the knowledge-
base layer is drawn to emphasise the necessity of
documenting and storing newly created knowledge
and to symbolise the foundation it provides for the
other layers to be constructed on top of. However,
by following the triggering mechanisms for the
modes of knowledge creation, it becomes inevitable
that knowledge is documented, stored and
recovered. It therefore does not add anything
substantial to the conceptualisation and is left out of
the reconceptualisation in figure 10.
The fourth and fifth proposed changes to the
Hypertext model come from the cultural differences
that set Japanese management apart from western
management. The respondents felt a strong
connection with the terms trust, care and
commitment, but expressed to be uncomfortable with love. Nonaka, Toyama and Konno (2000) have
intended this construct to facilitate knowledge sharing and for the self-transcending process of
knowledge creation to occur. High levels of interpersonal love, trust, care and commitment mean
that there is an atmosphere in which people feel safe in sharing their knowledge, where personal
knowledge asset monopolies are non-existent and employees show altruistic behaviour in
progressing the organisation’s knowledge endowment. The intended meaning of this construct is
sufficiently explained when the term love is removed from the label. Because increasing
interpersonal love to improve knowledge sharing raises some eyebrows in western management, the
fourth proposed amendment of the Hypertext model involves relabeling the love, trust, care and
commitment construct to “trust, care and commitment”.
Figure 10: Project-system layer and business-system layer on opposing ends of a continuum
73
Knowledge scaling is described by Nonaka (1994) as the crystallisation of knowledge into unique,
personal perspectives, through an interaction between experience and rationality. As has been
declared in section 2.4., Nonaka’s explanation is distant from the distinction westerners make
between body and mind. The expectation that this conceptualisation of knowledge scaling will
alienate western managers was confirmed during the interviews when the majority of the
respondents felt no connection with this explanation, nor could they imagine what was meant.
Knowledge scaling is seen as an important mechanism in leveraging knowledge assets to become
more abundant in the organisation and by extension easier accessible. Other authors (e.g. Kogut &
Zander, 1992; Coff, Coff & Eastvold, 2006; Arikan, 2009) have explained knowledge scaling as
increasing knowledge asset volume by sharing knowledge. Because the sharing of knowledge is such
an integral part of the knowledge creation spiral, it is unclear what the value is of Nonaka’s
conceptualisation of knowledge scaling in the Hypertext model. Because of this element’s foundation
in traditional Japanese philosophy and its redundant position in the model, the fifth proposed change
to the Hypertext model is to remove the knowledge scaling element.
The remaining three proposed changes to the Hypertext model were suggested during the interviews
and haven’t yet been discussed in this paper. Firstly, there should be greater emphasis on a collective
sense of responsibility for the knowledge creation outcomes in self-organising teams. Examples were
provided of teams in which each member felt highly committed and dedicated to their personal
contribution, but experienced a low connection to the overall team performance. Feeling responsible
for one’s own performance and actions and being dedicated to the organisation’s knowledge
creation goals is already covered in the commitment part of trust, care and commitment. This
construct was found by respondents to be too general to apply to members of self-organising teams
to feel a sense of responsibility and urgency in the efforts of the collective they belong to. The sixth
proposed amendment to the Hypertext model is therefore to add collective responsibility to
effectiveness of self-organising teams.
The idea of adding the construct “synergy” to effectiveness of self-organising teams was also raised
during the interviews. In various instances, respondents have claimed that the effectiveness of
knowledge creation in self-organising teams is dependent on the way the team members work
together. This goes further than trust, care and commitment and is related to self-transcendence, but
whereas self-transcendence is about the individual performing above his potential, synergy is about a
team performing better than the sum of performances if the team members were to work
separately. The seventh proposed change to the Hypertext model is to improve the effectiveness of
self-organising teams by emphasising the importance of assembling a team with people who like
working together and complement each other’s competences to create a synergetic effect in
74
collaboration. Adding the construct synergy to effectiveness of self-organising teams will reflect this
change.
The last improvement to bring the Hypertext model closer to practice is to have more attention for
the personal competences of employees. The Hypertext model is currently built on the perception
that any employee who is willing to share his knowledge is also capable of sharing his knowledge.
The same is implied for collaborative efforts in self-organising teams; individuals are assumed to all
be capable of working together with others. The respondents have pointed out that in practice not
all employees possess the necessary qualities to share knowledge or work together as is assumed in
the Hypertext model. If they don’t have these competences, the model will not work as intended.
The eighth amendment to the Hypertext model is therefore to add competence development to
managing knowledge creation, so that efforts to improve communicative skills and teamwork are
seen as factors which stimulate the process of knowledge creation.
To bring the Hypertext model closer to practice, the eight proposed changes are:
1. Changing the knowledge creation concept from the matrix of four discrete modes into a
circle which allows overlap between the modes.
2. Knowledge creation can take place simultaneously in several modes.
3. Placing the business-system layer and the project-system layer on opposing ends of a
continuum to accommodate for the various gradations in between these constructs.
4. Removing the term love from the construct label love, trust, care and commitment.
5. Removing knowledge scaling as an emphasised element in the model.
6. Adding collective responsibility to effectiveness of self-organising teams.
7. Adding synergy to effectiveness of self-organising teams.
8. Adding competence development to managing knowledge creation.
The suggested improvements to the Hypertext model are visualised in figure 11. Note that the modes
of knowledge creation (figure 9) and the Hypertext organisation (figure 10) have been rotated for
layout purposes.
75
Figure 11: Visualisation of improved Hypertext model
76
6.2.2. Suggestions to improve knowledge creation at the case company
This subsection provides suggestions to improve knowledge creation at the case company. Though
these suggestions are not the primary aim of this paper, it offers insight into how the Hypertext
model can be of value in a practical situation.
The first and foremost improvement to knowledge creation at the case company is to drop
declarability as the primary performance indicator of project teams and departments. As several
quotes in chapter 4 have pointed out, using declarability as an important performance indicator
leads to a negative sentiment towards knowledge sharing and storing, because these actions don’t
add to the declarability rate of the individual or the team he is working in. Dropping this performance
indicator, or reducing its impact through introducing other performance indicators which are
conducive to knowledge creation, will help in improving the case company’s knowledge creation
efforts.
Documenting and storing newly created knowledge is currently an element of the Hypertext model
which receives very little attention at the case company. Low documentation negatively affects
knowledge redundancy and the sharing of knowledge, but also inhibits the combination mode. The
second suggestion for improvement is that a higher priority is placed on improving the rate with
which newly created knowledge is documented and stored into the organisation’s knowledge
repository.
In order to make it easier to recover entries from the knowledge repository and to improve
knowledge dissemination across project team and department boundaries, the third suggestion for
improvement is to reduce the segregation of the knowledge repository. Currently every team and
department has its own database in which knowledge is stored. These databases are accessible by
outsiders, but the interviewees have expressed that they don’t feel inclined to look beyond their own
team’s database to find solutions to the problems they are facing. A centralised knowledge
repository which applies to all project teams and departments will likely boost knowledge
dissemination between teams and departments.
The effectiveness of using a centralised knowledge repository as a tool for embedding knowledge
into the organisational memory, stimulating knowledge redundancy, and improving inter-team and
inter-departmental knowledge sharing, can potentially be improved by requiring new entries to
satisfy certain quality requirements. By using a template for new entries, in which there are several
fields which have to be used to describe particular details about a knowledge asset, there will be
more consistency in the entries. Furthermore, using this system will allow the search engine to
deliver search results which are linked to particular fields only. The fourth suggestion for
improvement is therefore to standardise knowledge documentation by using templates.
77
The business-system layer should play a larger role in the company’s knowledge creation. By
stimulating documentation and experimentation, and through a stricter coordination between team
members to move from the project-system layer to the business-system layer, knowledge creation at
the case company will benefit from the effects of top-down management on combination and
internalisation. The fifth suggestion for improvement is therefore to switch to the hierarchy more
prominently through stricter coordination, and stimulating documentation and experimentation.
While evaluating the interviews with a small group of respondents, there was support for the
assumption that there is low awareness of how knowledge creation can be managed. One
respondent expressed that he had never realised that knowledge creation is something which can be
modelled and managed to increase its outcomes. He thought it was a process which occurred
naturally, in an ad-hoc fashion. The interviews form a first step in creating awareness in the case
company about managing knowledge creation, because it is an eye-opener for several respondents.
But awareness about knowledge creation processes can also inhibit creative behaviour. Respondents
have expressed that they feel that their creative processes will be obstructed by the realisation that
they don’t occur freely, but are caused by incentives, triggers and other environmental factors. The
relation between awareness of knowledge management techniques and the outcomes of the
knowledge creation efforts is not researched in this paper, but the sixth suggestion for improvement
would be the selective creation of awareness of how knowledge creation occurs. This can focus on
upper and middle management.
Currently the knowledge creating efforts primarily take place at the individual level. There is low
cooperation in knowledge creation beyond employees pairing up in socialisation and externalisation.
Turning knowledge creation into a collective effort has efficiency benefits for all four modes of the
knowledge creation spiral. Collective knowledge creation will also actuate a collective sense of
responsibility for the creation of new knowledge. Accordingly, the seventh suggestion for
improvement is to draw knowledge creation into the greater community of the case company and
potentially across its organisational boundaries to include members of the industrial network in
which the case company resides.
To improve knowledge creation effectiveness at the case company, the seven proposed areas to
improve on are:
1. Dropping declarability as the primary performance indicator, or reducing its impact through
introduction of other performance indicators which are conducive to knowledge creation.
2. Placing a higher priority on improving the rate with which newly created knowledge is
documented and stored.
78
3. Reducing segregation of the knowledge repository by combining the various databases into
one centralised unit which is accessible by all members of the organisation.
4. Standardise knowledge documentation by using templates which allow for uniformity in the
level of detail and quality of entries.
5. The case company should switch to the hierarchy more prominently through stricter
coordination, and stimulating documentation and experimentation.
6. Selective creation of awareness of how knowledge creation occurs.
7. Draw knowledge creation into the greater community of the case company and potentially
across its organisational boundaries to include members of the industrial network in which
the case company resides.
6.3. Contributions
This study contributes to knowledge management theory by addressing the gap in theory that is the
broad and unclear explanation of the Hypertext model (Nonaka, 1994), which leads to an incomplete
comprehension of how the model works and difficulties of translating the model to practice. Critically
examining Nonaka’s body of work and adjacent publications from other authors has led to clearer
formulations and a reconstructed Hypertext model which forms a more complete representation of
what Nonaka (1994) has attempted to explain. Furthermore, the Hypertext model has been amended
to be closer to practice by implementing suggestions which have been obtained in a case study at a
knowledge intensive firm.
The case study forms the basis upon which conclusions about perceived value and applicability are
drawn. This qualitative and exploratory research forms the first attempt at determining the actual
value and applicability of the Hypertext model for knowledge creation in practice and adds to the
evidence concerning the model’s strength. The outcomes of the case study are to be regarded as
original empirical evidence in supporting the Hypertext model’s value and applicability, which is
another contribution to knowledge management theory.
A final contribution of this study is that it highlights the potential shortcomings of the model which
can form the basis for follow-up research. An assessment of the potential shortcomings adds to the
increased understanding of the model.
79
6.4. Limitations and suggestions for follow up research
There are several aspects which threaten the validity of the outcomes in this study. Firstly, the
statistical conclusion validity of this study is threatened by the choice of using a single case study
with which conclusions are drawn for the larger population of knowledge intensive companies. Using
a single case study has the drawback of measuring the perceptions and attitudes of respondents who
may form an unrepresentative sample of the larger population. A follow up research should
therefore be conducted at other knowledge intensive companies. Using the same research design, it
will be possible to confirm and possibly add to the outcomes of this study. Having a broader selection
of case companies will likely add to the strength of the conclusions in this study. Furthermore it will
be interesting to determine the value and applicability of the Hypertext model in organisations which
are to a lesser degree reliant on knowledge creation. It is possible that the outcomes of such a study
will deviate from the outcomes arrived at in this study.
A second threat to the validity of this study is caused by the choice to measure perceptions of
applicability and value as a substitute for the constructs applicability and value. In an ideal situation a
controlled experiment would have been conducted in which two nearly identical companies use the
company’s method of knowledge creation and the original Hypertext model. Alternatively, a research
design consisting of a pre-test of knowledge creation effectiveness, implementation of the model
and a post-test of knowledge creation effectiveness can be used to measure the actual constructs
applicability and value.
Arguably, the first research design will be very difficult to carry out, because of the unrealistic task of
finding or creating two or more nearly identical organisations. The second research design requires a
company which is willing to take the risk of implementing the model. In both cases it will be difficult
to control for external influences. The current design of measuring perceptions as a substitute is a
viable alternative to bring the Hypertext model closer to practice, as supported by the correlation
between perceptions of value and actual value (Hornik, 1984; Katz, Larson & Larson, 1991; Burton,
Sheather & Roberts, 2003).
The validity of the interview outcomes is possibly harmed by the selection criteria. The respondents
are selected based on an existing amicable relationship with the researcher which has been
developed over the years prior to the study when the researcher was employed at the case
company. The third limitation in this study is that if the relationship between the respondents and
the researcher has caused bias in the interview outcomes, the conclusions drawn in this study have
reduced value. To overcome this limitation a follow-up study can use alternative selection criteria of
cases, for example a combination of stratified and random sampling. Using the Chamber of
80
Commerce’s registry, a selection can be made of knowledge-intensive companies which are of
relatively equal size. From this stratified sample a randomised sample can be drawn to select
companies which can be invited to participate in the study. Within these companies, probability
sampling can be used to arrive at potential individual respondents.
Data can also be drawn from alternative sources. Reconfiguring the research design to incorporate
quantitative data can help to arrive at more broadly comparable and ultimately generalizable
outcomes. While the constructs applicability and value are difficult to measure using quantitative
data, a set of questions can be constructed to arrive at accurate estimates of these constructs.
Examples of such questions in the case of documenting and storing knowledge are:
The number of new entries in the organisational knowledge repository over a period of time
The growth rate of organisational knowledge repository over a period of time, in terms of
number of entries
The perceived usability of the organisational knowledge repository, using a Likert-like scale
The perception of completeness of the knowledge available in the organisational knowledge
repository, using a Likert-like scale
The perception of exhaustiveness of individual entries in the organisational knowledge
repository, using a Likert-like scale
The fourth and final threat to the validity of the outcomes is caused by the way the researcher has
explained the model during the interviews. After having conducted a literature review and coming to
conclusions about the model solely based on theoretical aspects, it has proven difficult to explain the
model as unbiased as possible. It was important for the respondents to receive a neutral explanation
of how the Hypertext model functions, if they were to provide accurate estimates of how the model
would work at the case company. To overcome this limitation, follow-up research can be designed to
use multiple interviewers who are unaware of the potential theoretical shortcomings of the model.
Being unaware of the shortcomings allows the interviewers to remain neutral in explaining the
model, because they can’t influence the respondents with negative sentiment caused by the
awareness of these shortcomings. Using more than one interviewer can cause a potential bias
originating at the researcher’s communicative skills to be devalued in the greater sample.
There are four more suggestions for follow-up research which are not directly related to the
limitations due to the research design of this study, but valuable in creating a better understanding
of how the model works. In section 2.3. there is mention of how it is unclear how Nonaka has
envisioned the organisation moving through the three layers of the Hypertext organisation. It is
doubtful that the entire organisation moves through the layers simultaneously. Shifting only portions
81
of the organisation can have an effect of incongruent management practices across different
overlapping business units. A third interpretation of the model is that this is merely a stylised
representation of the organisation which should primarily serve as a theoretical exercise or as a
guideline for managers. A suggestion for follow up research is therefore to determine how an
implementation of the model will affect knowledge creation effectiveness if it is (1) applied to move
all of the organisation through the three layers at once, (2) applied to move parts of the organisation
through the layers asynchronously, or (3) if it is applied without shifting the organisation through the
three layers and focus is put on aspects such as the level of autonomy, self-transcendence and cross-
fertilisation. Based on this research a new attempt can be made to bring the model closer to practice.
This study has highlighted a number of potential shortcomings of the Hypertext model in section 2.4.
which can be summarised as the insufficient explanation of constructs and of the causal relations
between constructs, the relative absence of empirical support for proposed relations, the potential
for a moderating effect of Japanese culture on the proposed relations, and the choice for sequential
knowledge creation being incongruent with Nonaka’s preference for parallel development. Another
suggestion for follow up research is therefore to determine the construct validity of all the elements
in the model. In addition to proving the implied causal relations between these elements, such a
study will significantly add to the theoretical value of the model. This type of follow up study will
have the most significant impact on the way the model is perceived to be valuable for organisational
knowledge creation.
A further suggestion for follow up research concerns the potential of Japanese culture having a
moderating effect on the expected relationships. After the causal relations between the model’s
constructs have been proven in the setting of western culture, it will be interesting to compare the
model’s workings across different cultures. If Nonaka’s conceptualisation of knowledge scaling, the
field of interaction (Ba) and interpersonal love, trust, care and commitment are not similarly
applicable across different cultures, another adjustment to the model is warranted.
The final suggestion for follow up research is to determine whether the knowledge creation spiral
can take place in an alternative order as has been hinted at throughout this study. One of the
conclusions of this study is that the model will be improved by departing from the set order in which
the modes of knowledge creation take place. The drawback of this is that the order of the knowledge
creation spiral is strongly linked with the organisation moving through the layers of the Hypertext
organisation. A solution has been provided by placing these layers on a spectrum with corresponding
colouring as the revised knowledge creation spiral in figures 9 and 10. It will be interesting to see
how this new design will work in practice and potentially add to the value of this study’s outcomes.
82
References
Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. (2001). Knowledge management and knowledge management systems:
Conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Quarterly, 25(1), 107-136.
Ambrosini, V., & Bowman, C. (2001). Tacit knowledge: some suggestions for operationalization.
Journal of Management Studies, 38(6), 811-829.
Argote, L., & Ingram, P. (2000). Knowledge Transfer: A Basis for Competitive Advantage in Firms.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 150-169.
Arikan, A. T. (2009). Interfirm knowledge exchanges and the knowledge creation capability of
clusters. Academy of Management Review, 34(4), 658-676.
Barney, J. (1991). Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. Journal of Management,
17(1), 99-120.
Bhatt, G. D. (2001). Knowledge management in organizations: examining the interaction between
technologies, techniques, and people. Journal of Knowledge Management, 5(1), 68-75.
Bloodgood, J. M., & Salisbury, W. D. (2001). Understanding the influence of organizational change
strategies on information technology and knowledge management strategies. Decision
Support Systems, 31, 55-69.
Burt, R. S. (1995). Structural holes: the social structure of competition. Cambridge, Massachusetts:
Harvard University Press.
Burton, S., Sheather, S., & Roberts, J. (2003). Reality or Perception? The Effect of Actual and
Perceived Performance on Satisfaction and Behavioral Intention. Journal of Service Research,
5(4), 292-302.
Cabrera, A., & Cabrera, E. (2002). Knowledge-sharing Dilemmas. Organization Studies, 23(5), 687-
710.
Choi, B., & Lee, H. (2002). Knowledge management strategy and its link to knowledge creation
process. Expert Systems with Applications, 23, 173-187.
Coff, R. W., Coff, D. C., & Eastvold, R. (2006). The knowledge-leveraging paradox: How to achieve
scale without making knowledge imitable. Academy of Management Review, 31(2), 452-465.
83
Dyer, J. H., & Nobeoka, K. (2000). Creating and managing a high performance knowledge-sharing
network: The Toyota case. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 345-368.
European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions. (2005). Sector Futures -
The knowledge-intensive business services sector. Loughlinstown, Dublin: European
Monitoring Centre on Change.
Gourlay, S. (2006). Conceptualizing Knowledge Creation: A Critique of Nonaka's Theory. Journal of
Management Studies, 43(7), 1415-1436.
Grant, R. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17,
109-122.
Healy, M., & Perry, C. (2000). Comprehensive criteria to judge validity and reliability of qualitative
research within the realism paradigm. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal,
3(3), 118-126.
Hornik, J. (1984). Subjective vs. Objective Time Measures: A Note on the Perception of Time in
Consumer Behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 11(1), 615-618.
Kang, S. C., & Snell, S. A. (2009). Intellectual Capital Architectures and Ambidextrous Learning: A
Framework for Human Resource Management. Journal of Management Studies, 46(1), 65-92.
Katz, K., Larson, B., & Larson, R. (1991). Prescription for Waiting-in-Line Blues: Entertain, Enlighten
and Engage. Sloan Management Review, 32, 44-53.
Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the Firm, Combinative Capabilities, and the Replication
of Technology. Organization Science, 3(3) , Focused Issue: Management of Technology, 383-
397.
Krueger, R. (1994). Focus Groups: a Practical Guide for Applied Research. Thousand Oaks, California:
Sage Publications.
Menon, T., & Pfeffer, J. (2003). Valuing Internal vs. External Knowledge: Explaining the Preference for
Outsiders. Management Science, 49(4) , Special Issue on Managing Knowledge in
Organizations: Creating, Retaining, and Transferring Knowledge, 497-513.
Nelson, R., & Winter, S. (1982). An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
84
Nonaka, I. (1988a). Creating Organizational Order Out of Chaos: Self-Renewal in Japanese Firms.
California Management Review, 30, 57-73.
Nonaka, I. (1988b). Toward Middle-Up-Down Management: Accelerating Information Creation. Sloan
Management Review, 29(3), 9-18.
Nonaka, I. (1991). The knowledge creating company. Harvard Business Review, 69, 96-104.
Nonaka, I. (1994). A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation. Organization Science,
5(1), 14-37.
Nonaka, I., & von Krogh, G. (2009). Tacit Knowledge and Knowledge Conversion: Controversy and
Advancement in Organizational Knowledge Creation Theory. Organization Science, 20(3),
635-652.
Nonaka, I., Byosiere, P., Borucki, C., & Konno, N. (1994). Organizational Knowledge Creation Theory:
A First Comprehensive Test. International Business Review, 3(4), 337-351.
Nonaka, I., Toyama, R., & Konno, N. (2000). SECI, Ba and Leadership: a Unified Model of Dynamic
Knowledge Creation. Long Range Planning, 33, 5-34.
Nonaka, I., von Krogh, G., & Voelpel, S. (2006). Organizational Knowledge Creation Theory:
Evolutionary Paths and Future Advances. Organization Studies, 27(8), 1179-1208.
Polanyi, M. (1966). The Tacit Dimension. Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc.
Reed, J., & Payton, V. (1997). Focus groups: issues of analysis and interpretation. Journal of Advanced
Nursing, 26, 765-771.
Ribeiro, R., & Collins, H. (2007). The Bread-Making Machine: Tacit Knowledge and Two Types of
Action. Organization Studies, 28(9), 1417-1433.
Riggins, F. J., & Rhee, H. S. (1999). Developing the Learning Network Using Extranets. International
Journal of Electronic Commerce, 4(1), 65-83.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2009). Research methods for business students, fifth edition.
Harlow, England: Pearson Education Ltd.
Sim, J. (1998). Collecting and analysing qualitative data: issues raised by the focus group. Journal of
Advanced Nursing, 28(2), 345-352.
85
Song, J., Almeida, P., & Wu, G. (2003). Learning-by-Hiring: When Is Mobility More Likely to Facilitate
Interfirm Knowledge Transfer? Management Science, 49(4) , Special Issue on Managing
Knowledge in Organizations: Creating, Retaining, and Transferring Knowledge, 351-365.
Starbuck, W. (1992). Learning by Knowledge Intensive Firms. Journal of Management Studies, 29(6),
719-740.
Swart, J., & Kinnie, N. (2003). Sharing knowledge in knowledge-intensive firms. Human Resource
Management Journal, 13(2), 60-75.
Takeuchi, H., & Nonaka, I. (1986). The New New Product Development Game. Harvard Business
Review, 64(1), 137-146.
Tallman, S., Jenkins, M., Henry, N., & Pinch, S. (2004). Knowledge, Clusters, and Competitive
Advantage. The Academy of Management Review, 29(2), 258-271.
Tanriverdi, H., & Iacono, C. (1998). Knowledge barriers to diffusion of telemedicine. Proceedings of
the International Conference on Information Systems, 19, 39-50.
Teece, D. (2000). Strategies for Managing Knowledge Assets: the Role of Firm Structure and Industrial
Context. Long Range Planning, 33, 35-54.
Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management.
Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509-533.
Turner, K. L., & Makhija, M. V. (2006). The role of organizational controls in managing knowledge.
Academy of Management Review, 31(1), 197-217.
Ulrich, D. (1998). A new mandate for human resources. Harvard Business Review, 41(1), 124-134.
von Hippel, E. (1988). The Sources of Innovation. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
von Krogh, G. (1998). Care in knowledge creation. California Management Review, 40(3), 133-154.
86
Appendices
A.1. Interview protocol
Five groups of around three respondents will be subjected to semi-structured interviews lasting
around 30-45 minutes. The semi-structured nature of the interviews allows the interviewer to
change the order of the interview topics, based on the flow of the interview. Particular questions
may be skipped if the topic has been sufficiently discussed following a prior interview question.
The respondents’ job descriptions and tenure will be registered at the start of each interview. The
interviews will be recorded using a digital audio recording device and hand written notes will be
taken to help in reconstructing the vital parts of the discussions after the interviews have been
conducted. The interviews will not be transcribed in their entirety.
Prior to the interview the respondents will receive a list of discussion topics. At a later stage they are
granted the opportunity to critique the transcriptions to make sure they are comfortable with the
quotes that are published in the paper.
The interview outcomes will be used to support claims about the applicability of Nonaka’s Hypertext
organisational model and form a basis upon which conclusions are drawn about the value of the
model. The exploratory nature of the study implies that these conclusions hold limited external
validity.
The interviews are divided into four segments. The first part will focus on the current method of
knowledge creation at the case company. These questions will be used to form a context with which
the Hypertext model can be compared and create awareness of the current paradigm.
Between the first and second part of the interview a brief explanation of the Hypertext model will be
provided to prepare the interviewees for the upcoming discussion topics. This explanation will cover
the four modes of knowledge creation and the three-layered organisation design. The questions in
part two will cover the Hypertext model with certain depth. The respondents are asked to provide
their opinions and expectations on the model’s underlying principles. The outcomes of this part will
be used as exploratory assessment of the value of the model’s foundations.
After establishing some familiarity with the Hypertext model and its fundamentals, the third part of
the interview will cover the expectations of value and applicability of the Hypertext model at the case
company. The questions in part three are formulated to resemble the questions in part one, to allow
an easy comparison between the existing model for knowledge creation and the Hypertext model.
The fourth and final part of the interview serves as an opportunity for the interviewees to express
87
their thoughts on the topic in a general sense, or elaborate on aspects which were not covered by
the interview questions.
Part I – The knowledge creation methods currently in use at the case company. (Limited to 10
minutes)
Introductions and formalities will be limited to thanking the interviewees for participating in the
research, a brief introduction of the topic and an explanation of the relevance of this research to the
case company. A sense of familiarity and trust between the interviewees and interviewer is assumed
to exist based on the interviewer having been employed at the case company in the years prior to
the study and as a result having an informal relation with the interviewees.
1. Explain your current involvement in knowledge creation. Elaborate on motivating factors,
context and how newly created knowledge is made available to the rest of the organisation.
2. Explain why the current system of knowledge creation is a suitable, or unsuitable, system for
the organisation. Elaborate on how it fits the organisation’s requirements for knowledge
creation.
3. How do you think the current system of knowledge creation should be amended to increase
its fit with the organisation’s requirements?
4. How do you think the current system of knowledge creation should be amended to increase
the knowledge creation output?
Part II – Familiarising the respondents with the mechanics of the Hypertext model, and assessing the
value and applicability of the model’s underlying principles. (Limited to 15 minutes)
After briefly explaining the Hypertext model, the second part of the interview focuses on
expectations about an implementation of the model at the case company. The questions will be
presented using schematic representations of the four modes of knowledge creation and the three-
layered organisation design. These drawings are expected to assist in explaining the model and
5. What are your expectations of using triggering mechanisms (self-organising teams, dialogue,
coordination and documentation, and experimentation) to facilitate the sequence of
knowledge conversion modes? Elaborate on which mode(s) of knowledge creation you think
to be the closest to your current role in knowledge creation. Are you optimistic or pessimistic
88
about particular modes of knowledge creation? (Socialisation, externalisation, combination,
internalisation)
6. Why do you think knowledge creation in self-organising teams can be a success or failure?
This question focuses on the processes of socialisation and externalisation. Discuss
expectations surrounding the roles of top management and middle management, creative
chaos, autonomy, self-transcendence, redundancy of information, cross fertilisation, and
informal face-to-face communication.
7. Why do you think knowledge creation under typical top-down management can be a success
or failure? This question focuses on the processes of combination and internalisation. Discuss
expectations surrounding the roles of top-down directives, low uncertainty, measurable
criteria, sequential (relay pattern) information flows between organisational layers, low
personal interaction with information, top management’s distance from shop floors and the
creation of visionary concepts at the organisational level.
8. What is your position on the storage of newly created knowledge in a central organisational
knowledge repository? What do you think are the shortcomings and advantages of this
approach? How would you improve the usability of a central organisational knowledge
repository? How would you increase the effectiveness of using a central organisational
knowledge repository?
Part III – The expected applicability and value of the Hypertext model. (Limited to 10 minutes)
9. Discuss how you expect your involvement in knowledge creation to change, if this model is
implemented. Elaborate on motivating factors, context, how newly created knowledge is
made available to the rest of the organisation and if you think this a positive or negative
development.
10. Explain why the Hypertext model can be a suitable, or unsuitable, system of knowledge
creation for the organisation. Elaborate on how you think it will fit the organisation’s
requirements for knowledge creation.
11. How do you think the Hypertext model should be changed to increase its fit with the
organisation’s requirements?
12. How do you think the Hypertext model should be changed to increase the knowledge
creation output?
13. After discussing these topics, how would you judge the Hypertext organisation model in
terms of value and applicability?
89
Part IV – Ending the interview. (Unlimited)
14. I don’t have any other questions; is there anything you want to add with regard to the topic
of organisational knowledge creation?
90
A.2. Interview briefing
This document was sent to respondents in preparation for the interviews. It serves to inform the
interviewees of the reason for inviting them to participate in this research, the research goals, the
relevancy to the case company, and the discussion topics. It is written in Dutch because all
respondents are of the Dutch nationality.
Voordat ik begin wil ik jullie alvast heel hartelijk danken voor jullie deelname en moeite. Ik stel
het enorm op prijs dat jullie tijd hebben willen vrijmaken om mij te helpen met wat insider-
ideeën!
Het doel van deze briefing is om de respondenten te informeren over de achtergrond van mijn
afstudeeronderzoek, voor te bereiden op het onderwerp van het interview en afbakeningen te
bieden. Lees dit document dus even door, zodat je voorbereid bent op het interview en ook
exact weet wat je na afloop van het interview kunt verwachten.
Zoals jullie wellicht al wisten, hoop ik binnenkort mijn masterstudie Business Administration –
HRM af te ronden. Hiervoor is het noodzakelijk dat ik een onderzoek doe, waarover een thesis
wordt geschreven. Als ik mijn onderzoeksuitkomsten succesvol kan verdedigen bij een
colloquium, behaal ik mijn bul.
Sinds ongeveer tweeëneenhalf jaar ben ik bezig met een onderzoek naar kenniscreatie in
organisaties. Hierbij onderzoek ik de praktische waarde en toepasbaarheid van het
“Hypertext organisation model” van Nonaka (1994). Dit is binnen mijn vakgebied een bekend
model dat voorstelt om de organisatiestructuur aan te passen aan het type kenniscreatie dat
binnen de organisatie plaatsvindt. Ik heb een mening over dit model en ik wil mijn mening
ondersteunen met een theoretische uiteenzetting van tekortkomingen en een case-study
waaruit moet blijken hoe het model verbeterd kan worden.
[Het bedrijf] vervult binnen mijn onderzoek de rol van praktijkorganisatie waarbinnen ik mijn
ideeën wil toetsen. Jullie antwoorden kunnen dus worden gebruikt als bewijs voor de
conclusies die ik op theoretische basis wil trekken. Ook kunnen ze worden ingezet om
aanbevelingen voor verbetering te doen. De waarde van mijn onderzoek voor [het bedrijf] is
hierdoor minimaal. De mensen die deelnemen aan mijn onderzoek worden zich beter bewust
van hoe kenniscreatie bij [het bedrijf] plaatsvindt en kunnen wellicht de aanzet geven voor
een optimalisering bij [het bedrijf]. Er zal echter geen plan komen waarmee [het bedrijf]
meteen aan de slag kan.
Het is vanwege deze beperkte waarde voor [het bedrijf] en de theoretische inslag waarmee ik
het onderzoek uitvoer, dat mijn onderzoek geen opdracht van [het bedrijf] is. Dit houdt in dat
91
jullie de tijdsbesteding van dit onderzoek niet kunnen boeken. Dit maakt dat ik nog meer
dankbaar ben in jullie richting, omdat het dus eigenlijk vrije tijd is waarin jullie je dienstbaar
opstellen!
De interviews worden uitgevoerd in groepsgesprekken waarvoor ik ongeveer drie
respondenten per groep heb uitgenodigd. Van deze respondenten is er altijd minstens één
relevante manager aanwezig. Ik zoek de respondentengroepen binnen de projectteams van
[het bedrijf] omdat ik op deze manier een basisniveau van teamgevoel verwacht en omdat
mijn vragen voor een deel zullen gaan over het werken in flexibele teams. Er zijn nog een hele
lijst aan methodologische keuzes die ertoe leiden dat ik groepsinterviews wil ga uitvoeren,
waar ik nu niet op uitweidt. Als ik jullie hier teveel over vertel, kan het namelijk de uitkomsten
van de interviews beïnvloeden.
De interviews zullen worden opgenomen met een geluidsrecorder. Ook zal ik met de hand
notities nemen van wat er gezegd is. Hierna werk ik een gedeelte uit in de vorm van nuttige of
bijzondere passages die ik wil meenemen in mijn thesis. Jullie worden van te voren gevraagd
of je nog steeds achter bepaalde uitspraken staat, alvorens ik jullie woorden publiceer in mijn
paper. Ik wil namelijk niet dat jullie het gevoel krijgen dat ik jullie woorden verdraai. Tenslotte
is het nuttig om even op te merken dat ik de naam van [het bedrijf] niet noem in mijn thesis
en dat ook jullie namen gecodeerd worden, waardoor het voor outsiders lastig is om vast te
stellen wie er aan het onderzoek hebben deelgenomen. De teamnamen zoals “Fronteers” of
“Special Forces” kunnen in de uitwerking worden gebruikt om respondenten te kunnen
identificeren.
De interviews zijn verdeeld in drie delen, met een slotvraag. In het eerste deel (geplande duur:
10 minuten) zal ik het onderwerp even introduceren en stel ik vier vragen over hoe kennis op
dit moment wordt gecreëerd bij [het bedrijf]. Het gaat dan over ideeëngeneratie, hoe deze
ideeën tot stand komen en hoe kennis wordt gedeeld zodat iedereen hier beter van kan
worden. Concreet gaan de vragen over:
1. Wat is jouw rol in kenniscreatie?
2. In hoeverre denk je dat de methode van kenniscreatie past bij de organisatie?
3. Hoe zou je deze methode willen aanpassen om het beter te laten aansluiten met de
kennisbehoeften van de organisatie?
4. Hoe zou je het willen aanpassen om meer ideeën te kunnen genereren met dezelfde
mensen?
92
In het tweede deel van het interview (geplande duur: 15 minuten) introduceer ik jullie aan het
Hypertext model en de fundamenten waarop dit model rust. Omdat het nogal een complex
model is, zal ik proberen het zo helder en aantrekkelijk mogelijk te brengen. Een tipje van de
sluier kun je vinden op pagina 3 van deze briefing. Eigenlijk wil ik jullie de basics in minder dan
drie minuten kunnen uitleggen. Op basis van deze uitleg ga ik onder andere de volgende
vragen stellen:
5. Wat vind je van het gebruik van triggers om de vier modi van de kennisspiraal in gang
te zetten?
6. Hoe sta je tegenover kenniscreatie in zelfsturende teams? Hierbij gaat het met name
over de processen socialisation en externalisation.
7. Hoe sta je tegenover kenniscreatie in een top-down managementstructuur? Hierbij
gaat het met name over de processen combination en internalisation.
8. Wat vind je van een gecentraliseerde kennis-databank, waar nieuwe kennis in wordt
opgeslagen en waarop aanspraak kan worden gedaan als je iets wilt opzoeken dat al
eerder is gedaan?
Het derde deel van het interview (geplande duur: 10 minuten) gaat over het model in zijn
geheel en hoe het te vergelijken is met hoe kennis wordt gecreëerd bij [het bedrijf]. Met de
discussie die is ontstaan in vraag 5 t/m 8 zul je over voldoende basiskennis van het model
beschikken om de volgende vragen te kunnen beantwoorden:
9. Als het Hypertext model wordt ingevoerd bij [het bedrijf], hoe denk je dat jouw rol in
kenniscreatie zal veranderen?
10. In hoeverre vind je het Hypertext model een toepasselijke manier van kenniscreatie
voor [het bedrijf]?
11. Hoe zou je het Hypertext model willen aanpassen om het beter te laten aansluiten
met de kennisbehoeften van de organisatie?
12. Hoe zou je het Hypertext model willen aanpassen om meer ideeën te kunnen
genereren met dezelfde mensen?
13. Terugkijkend op wat we hebben besproken in de vorige twaalf punten; wat is jouw
mening over de waarde en toepasbaarheid van het Hypertext model voor
kenniscreatie binnen [het bedrijf]?
14. Afsluiting; als je nog iets wilt toevoegen dat niet aan bod is gekomen tijdens het
interview, dan kan dat hier.
93
Zoals aangegeven een korte uitleg van het Hypertext model, waarover vragen 5 t/m 13 gaan:
Kennis wordt gezien als een ontastbare resource die de organisatie aanwendt om waarde te
creëren. Een belangrijk verschil tussen kennis en andere resources is dat kennis zich bij
overdracht vermeerderd in omvang, terwijl andere resources in een transactie niet groeien.
Kennis kan hierbij twee vormen aannemen, explicit of tacit. Explicit kennis is alle kennis die je
met relatief gemak onder woorden kan brengen, kan opschrijven, of kan overdragen met
gebruik van taal of symbolen. Tacit kennis is kennis die niet zo gemakkelijk over te dragen is
met behulp van taal of symbolen. Fingerspitzengefühl of intuïtie zijn vormen van kennis die in
zakendoen vaak belangrijk zijn, maar niet gemakkelijk uit te leggen zijn aan anderen.
Kenniscreatie wordt gezien als een proces waarbij kennis wordt overgedragen aan anderen,
waarbij het schommelt van explicit naar tacit en weer terug. Dit proces wordt de spiraal van
kenniscreatie genoemd. Hierin zijn vier fasen te onderscheiden, socialisation, externalisation,
combination en internalisation. In socialisation wordt tacit kennis overgedragen, waarbij
nieuwe tacit kennis ontstaat. Dit gebeurt door gedurende lange tijd ervaring op te doen met
het toepassen van de kennis, zoals in de setting van een leermeester-leerling relatie, welke in
oude ambachten gebruikelijk is.
In externalisation wordt tacit kennis overgedragen, waarbij nieuwe explicit kennis ontstaat.
Dit proces kan plaats hebben als er in een open discussie wordt gesproken over de tacit kennis
van de afzender en hierbij gebruik te maken van metaforen en analogieën om de tacit kennis
onder woorden te kunnen brengen. De dialoog tussen afzender en ontvanger is hierbij
noodzakelijk om de inhoud van het bericht in stand te houden. De ontvanger kan daarna zelf
een betekenis geven aan het bericht en is dan ook in staat om de tacit kennis te coderen in de
vorm van taal of symbool. De kennis die dan ontstaat, is niet langer tacit, maar explicit.
In combination wordt explicit kennis overgedragen, waarbij door een combinatie met andere
explicit kennis, nieuwe explicit kennis ontstaat. Dit is te beschrijven als het synergetische
effect dat kan ontstaan wanneer
verschillende kennisbronnen worden
gecombineerd tot een nieuwe
kennisbron. Deze nieuwe bron heeft dan
een grotere waarde dan de som van de
delen waaruit de bron is opgesteld. Een
concreet voorbeeld van kenniscreatie
door middel van combinatie is het
samenwerken van een interactie-
Figuur 1: Spiraal van kenniscreatie
94
ontwerper met een front-end en back-end developer om een site te bouwen. Afzonderlijk
hadden ze ook tot innovatieve resultaten kunnen komen, maar ze tezamen is hun resultaat
waarschijnlijk nog veel beter.
De vierde fase, internalisation, is te vergelijken met de meest traditionele vorm van
kennisoverdracht, met behulp van schoolboeken. Als je iets leest in een boek, interpreteer je
de nieuwe kennis met behulp van jouw eigen ervaringen en eerder opgedane kennis.
Onbewust leg je dan verbanden tussen wat je leest en wat je al wist. Deze factoren tezamen
maken dat je tot nieuwe, gecombineerde kennis komt die specifiek is voor jouw eigen
interpretatiekader. Deze nieuwe kennis is tacit van aard.
De spiraal van kenniscreatie wordt gevormd door deze vier fasen in een volgorde te plaatsen.
Kennis beweegt dan langs elk van de vier fasen en groeit in omvang bij elke keer dat het
wordt overgedragen aan anderen (zie de figuur 1).
Het Hypertext model neemt deze vier fasen van kennisontwikkeling als uitgangspunt en zegt
dat de fasen socialisation en externalisation het beste tot uiting komen in een flexibele
organisatiestructuur met zelfsturende teams. De middelmanagers (of projectleiders, in het
geval van [het bedrijf]) hebben hierbij de rol van communicatieknooppunt tussen de
innoverende uitvoerende medewerkers en de topmanagers die de algemene richting van de
organisatie uitstippelen, maar zich inhoudelijk niet al te sterk bemoeien.
Daar tegenover staat dat combination en internalisation waarschijnlijk het beste kan
plaatsvinden in een meer gelaagde organisatiestructuur waarbij sprake is van top-down
bestuur. Het hoger management is dan verantwoordelijk voor het uitzetten van duidelijke
richtlijnen en het wegnemen van onzekerheden, zodat de uitvoerende medewerkers exact
weten waar ze aan toe zijn.
Het Hypertext model stelt daarom voor
dat organisaties moeten kunnen
switchen tussen deze twee structuren,
naar gelang het type kenniscreatie dat
plaatsvindt binnen het bedrijf. Hierbij
wordt de organisatie als een drielaags
systeem gezien (zie figuur 2) met in de
basis een centraal opslagsysteem van
kennis, een hiërarchisch systeem en een
flexibel systeem.
Figuur 2: Hypertext model voor kenniscreatie in organisaties